도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On September 9, 2002, at around 09:18, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the vehicle operation restriction by the road management authority, by operating B vehicles loaded with freight at the 11.27 tons of the 3rd load and the 3rd load and the 11.27 tons of the 3rd load and the 3rd load and the 3rd load.
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) to the facts charged in the instant case, and filed a claim for a summary order. The court affirmed the facts charged pursuant to the above provision and notified the summary order subject to retrial. The summary order became final and conclusive around that time.
However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on October 28, 2010 that "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the former Road Act, "the provisions of the above Act retroactively lose its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act."
On the other hand, in a case where the provisions of the penal law or the provisions of the law are retroactively invalidated due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions shall be deemed a crime.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992, etc.). 3. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case which does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.