도로법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as a branch company of C11 ton of C, is the owner, and D, its employee, on August 18, 2005, violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority by operating the said vehicle at a point of 52.7km in the direction of the direction of the side of the Seoul Southern Metropolitan Highway on August 18, 2005, in order to preserve the structure of the road at a point of 52.7km in the direction of the side of the road, and to prevent the danger of operation.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment was prosecuted by applying 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 of this case, and the court issued a summary order subject to a fine of 50,000 won on March 6, 2006 and confirmed around that time.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence 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" (see Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that applied to this case, the provision of the Act retroactively loses 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, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the facts charged in the instant case are ultimately committed when it does not constitute a crime.