도로법위반
The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.
1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the owner of a vehicle A and the user of B, and B violated the restrictions on vehicle operation by the road management authority by excessively operating 4.28 tons of the total weight of the vehicle, even though the location at the 21:38 on Oct. 12, 2003, the coastline 33.81km, which is a restricted area, cannot be operated by loading more than 40 tons of gross weight.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) with respect to the above facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and the summary order subject to review was issued and confirmed around that time.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act in violation of Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined in accordance with the Article concerned (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010)" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
On the other hand, where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void 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, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.