On December 11, 1993, 06:18 on December 11, 1993, B, who is an employee of the defendant, operated the cargo loaded with 11 ton in the third axis in excess of 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the 10 ton of the local highway 1004.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged, and filed a prosecution against the defendant by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act. A summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed around that time.

The Constitutional Court shall, when an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case on December 29, 2011, in relation to the business of the juristic person, be punished by a fine referred to in corresponding Article.

Article 47(2) proviso of the Constitutional Court Act (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) declares that the part of “” is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga, Dec. 29, 201) and thus, the said provision of the Act was retroactively null and void in accordance with the proviso of

In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the defendant's case was not committed as a crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). The facts charged constitute a case where the facts charged are not committed as a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.