The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A in charge.

On July 22, 1997, B, an employee of the defendant, operated the cargo loaded with the cargo of 11.6 tons at the 2 axis of the above vehicle in excess of 10 tons in front of the 119 kilometers on the road in front of the Eup/Myeon located in the 119 kilometers of the Korean Highway.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 83 subparagraph 2, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged, and filed a prosecution against the defendant by applying Article 86, Article 83 subparagraph 2, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act. A summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed around that time.

The Constitutional Court shall, when an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense referred to in subparagraph 2 of Article 83 in Article 86 of the former Road Act applied mutatis mutandis to this case on October 28, 2010, impose a fine referred to in corresponding Article on the juristic person.

Article 47(2) proviso of the Constitutional Court Act (see Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) declares that the part of “” is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) and thus, the said provision of the law was retroactively null and void in accordance

In a case where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the defendant's case was not committed as a crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). The facts charged constitute a case where the facts charged are not committed as a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.