도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On April 5, 2004, at around 19:13, around 2004, A, an employee of the Defendant, carried 10.33 tons of freight of 10.06 tons of gross weight, 4.08 tons of freight of 10.33 tons of gross weight, 0.06 tons of 4.08 tons of gross weight on the national highway No. 31 located in the 31st of the 30th of the 4th of the charge and operated 10 tons of gross weight of 0.33 tons of gross weight, 0.06 tons of gross weight, 0.06 tons of gross weight of 5 reduction, and 40 tons of gross weight of 4.08 tons of gross reduction.
2. The judgment prosecutor applied Article 86 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) to the defendant for the prosecution of this case.
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.