도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Around November 29, 1996, H, the Defendant’s employee of the facts charged, violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle with a load of 11.6 tons and 11.5 tons on the third axis in excess of 10 tons of limited weight on the 19.8km at a point of 19.8km in the Seodo Highway Incheon. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15083, Nov. 29, 1996>
2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged in this case by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) of the same Act). The provision of the above Act becomes retroactively null and void pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
On the other hand, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively effective due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision shall be deemed to constitute a crime.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992, etc.). 3. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case which does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.