2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant is punished by a fine under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and amended by Act No. 8946 of Mar. 21, 2008) in accordance with the Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga decided July 30, 2009, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation.

“The part asserts that the Constitution is unconstitutional.”

B. Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, the prosecutor applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 1993) to a summary order subject to retrial, thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion.

B. Although examining ex officio, Article 86 of the former Road Act applied by a prosecutor to a summary order subject to review does not have received a decision of unconstitutionality [ therefore, Article 86 of the former Act of the Civil Procedure applies to a summary order subject to review. However, the Criminal Litigation Act does not use the term "reasons for review" in the summary order subject to review, and thus, the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow a decision of commencement of review. However, if a decision of commencement of review becomes final and conclusive without any objection, it shall no longer dispute its validity. Even if the decision of commencement of review is unfair, the court shall make a new trial at that instance without examining the existence of the reasons for retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004). 3. The lower court, which held ex officio, seems to have limited to a number of Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004; 201Do3139, Jul. 13, 20013