The defendant shall be innocent.

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

On February 10, 1995, B, an employee of the defendant, loaded freight of 11.3 tons of the above vehicle at the Seoul branch office of 20.4km 20.4km on the 5 axis of the above vehicle and operated it in a state exceeding 10 tons of the restricted axis.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86, Article 83 subparag. 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 the defendant was issued a summary order subject to reexamination and confirmed around that time.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court sentenced Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine referred to in the relevant Article," which applies to this case, that the part of the above provision of the Act is against the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2)

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 provisions shall be limited to the case where it does not become a crime.

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