도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On February 8, 2001, the summary of the facts charged, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation by operating B car trucks with B car trucks loaded with freight of 1.02 tons of freight of the 11.02 tons of the 4th load of the 4th load, in front of the station of inspection in the 17:21, 201, in connection with the Defendant’s duties.
2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor filed a public prosecution by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same).
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in Article 83 (2) shall also be imposed on the corporation" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to the instant case, shall be deemed to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, the provision of the above Act shall retroactively lose its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) 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.). Thus, since the facts charged in this case do not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.