The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 (hereinafter "the summary order subject to review") on May 31, 1994 with respect to the summary order prosecuted under Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 193, and amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the defendant, and the summary order subject to review became final and conclusive around that time.

On September 28, 2020, the defendant filed a request for retrial on September 28, 202, and this court rendered a decision to commence retrial on October 19, 2020 on the ground that there were grounds for retrial under Article 47(4) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Act in a summary order subject to retrial. The decision to commence retrial became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that employees B, who are employees, should exercise due care and supervision to prevent excessive operation of C trucks in operating the Defendant’s business, and as such, B neglected to do so on March 11, 1994 and operated the freight exceeding 1.1 ton of the freight exceeding the loading standard on the fifth axis of the above vehicle, even though it was a restricted area where it is impossible to operate more than 10 tons at the street around the border of the Gyeong Highway on March 11, 1994.

3. Where the Acts and subordinate statutes on punishment have retroactively lost its validity due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, a prosecuted case against which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be pronounced not guilty under Article 325

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do5986, Dec. 16, 2010). When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) with respect to the business of the corporation, the Constitutional Court also has the same Article.