On October 5, 2020, the defendant requested a retrial on October 5, 2020, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on October 19, 2020 on the grounds that there were grounds for retrial under Article 47(4) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Act in a summary order subject to a retrial. The decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is an employee, should exercise due care and supervision to prevent the excessive operation of the Defendant’s business in the operation of the C Truck, and as such, neglected to do so and operated the said 1.4 tons loaded on the 2 axis of the said vehicle, even though it was a restricted area where it is impossible to operate more than 10 tons at the right edge of the 423.5 kilometers of the straight line, around October 7, 1995, at the right edge of the 423.5 kilometers of the straight line.

3. Where the Acts and subordinate statutes on punishment have retroactively lost its validity due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, a prosecuted case against which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be pronounced not guilty under Article 325

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do5986, Dec. 16, 2010). When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under subparagraph 1 of Article 84 in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) on December 29, 201, the Constitutional Court shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant provision.