The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: A, an employee, driving a freight vehicle B; on May 29, 2006, the Defendant refused to comply with a demand for the inspection of the control team without justifiable grounds while operating a while operating a cryp to the said freight vehicle in the opticalyang-si Eup on May 23, 2006.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)4 and 54(4) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and amended by Act No. 8124 of Dec. 28, 2006; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts.

However, on February 23, 2012, the Constitutional Court sentenced Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8124, Dec. 28, 2006; Act No. 8124, Dec. 28, 2006) that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 4 in connection with the business of the corporation, the portion of the fine under Article 83 (1) 4 shall also be imposed on the corporation,” which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2012Hun-Ga2, Feb. 23, 2012). Accordingly, the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with the proviso to Article 47 (2)

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.