The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B, around 19:45 on July 6, 1993, led the Defendant to take care of whether the Defendant’s duties are over-fluored at the horse room at the Man-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Foreign Racing-gun, and the latter failed to comply with this, and escaped.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts, and the defendant was issued a summary order subject to review and became final and conclusive around that time.

Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case on October 25, 2012, where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense referred to in subparagraph 2 of Article 84 with respect to the business of the corporation, the Constitutional Court shall also be punished by a fine referred to in that Article.

The phrase "" declared that the Constitution is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Order 2012HunGa18, Oct. 25, 2012). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

On the other hand, 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 shall be deemed to constitute a crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.