The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 27, 1993, at least 6:10, the driver C of the company B, which is a summary of the facts charged, demanded the suspension of the vehicle in order to measure the loading weight by two persons, other than the FF, from the above location during the operation limit, on the local road of 6:22, the Dozinsan-do Office of Budget-gun, with a stone of 10 lux in loading the above vehicle, and in the Hongk-gun D, with a stone of 10 lux in loading the vehicle, but failed to comply with the direction

The defendant had C, who belongs to the company, failed to comply with the above instructions.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 2 and Article 54(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 prosecuted the prosecution.

On October 25, 2012, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2012HunGa18) that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine pursuant to Article 84, Article 86 of the former Road Act." Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In addition, 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 relevant provisions shall be deemed to be a crime.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.