The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 on December 20, 1994 with respect to the summary order prosecuted under Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 1, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 193; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the defendant, and the summary order subject to review became final and conclusive around that time.

On January 15, 2019, the defendant requested a retrial on January 15, 201, and this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on February 22, 2019 on the ground that there was a ground for retrial under Article 47(4) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Act in a summary order subject to a retrial. The above decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant, who is an employee, should exercise due care and supervision to prevent excessive operation of the defendant's business in the operation of the C Truck, and as such, he neglected to do so on September 8, 1994, the above B cannot operate the 10 tons of the 1.4 tons of the 1.4 tons of the criminal facts of the summary order by loading the 1.4 tons of the 1.1 tons of the 1.4 tons of the 1.1 tons of the 1.4 tons of the criminal facts of the 1.4 tons of the 1.2 tons of the 1.

B excessively operated the vehicle.

3. Where the Acts and subordinate statutes on punishment have retroactively lost its validity due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, a prosecuted case against which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be pronounced not guilty under Article 325

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do5986, Dec. 16, 2010). Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995); Article 84 Subparag. 1, 201 regarding the duties of a corporation, an agent, employee, or other worker of the said corporation.