The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On June 8, 2004, around 00:46 on June 8, 2004, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by a road management authority by operating a B truck with a gross weight exceeding 4.06 tons exceeding 4.06 tons, even if the operation of a vehicle exceeding 40 tons in front of the business office of the Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-dong around 194 (194km).

2. The prosecutor applied 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 in the instant case, and filed a claim for a summary order, and the court issued a summary order subject to review and confirmed around that time.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the fine provided for in Article 83 (2) of the former Road Act shall also be imposed on the corporation concerned" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, and thus, the above 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, in a case where the provisions of the penal law or the provisions of the law are retroactively invalidated due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provisions shall be deemed a crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992, etc.). 3. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case which does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.