The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 7, 1994, at around 11:45, the driver C of the company B, which is a summary of the facts charged, loaded sand in a D vehicle loaded in the street room in front of the movement of movable property located in the budget-based local highway 616 line, in front of the inspection station, and did not comply with the demand for measuring the vehicle from the personnel E and two other persons at the same place.

The defendant did not comply with the demand for measurement as above to C belonging to the company.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 2 and Article 54 (2) 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 above charged facts and prosecuted the prosecution.

On October 25, 2012, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2012HunGa18) that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to Article 84, Article 86 of the former Road Act." Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.