The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 2, 2006, the Defendant violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by a road management authority by operating a vehicle with a total of more than 12.4 tons exceeding 2.4 tons from the 2nd to the 2nd to the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 2nd to the 12.4 tons of the 12.4 tons of the 10 tons of the 2nd to the 12.4 tons of the 19:3

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the same Act, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 on May 26, 2006, which is subject to a fine of KRW 500,000, and became final and conclusive around that time.

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the fine provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 shall also be imposed on the corporation" (see Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, July 30, 200), which applies to this case, the 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, 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 pertinent provisions shall be deemed to be a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). Thus, the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where the facts charged in this case is not a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.