The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 26, 1993, at around 11:40 on August 26, 1993, the Defendant is the owner of the vehicle A, and around 4:2 tons of the cargo loaded at the 2 axis, 3 4.2 tons of the cargo, even though he is unable to operate more than 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 4:3 metric tons of the cargo, in excess of the 4.2 tons of the cargo, even though he is unable to operate the cargo at the front of the Gansan-gun, YA, the

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 1, and Article 54(1) 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 facts charged and prosecuted the defendant. A summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed around that time.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined under Article 84 (2) of the former Road Act, which applies in this case (see Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) that 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 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.