The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the Defendant among the “criminal facts” or “facts of prosecution.”

(However) On February 2, 199, the prosecutor charged the facts charged in this case by applying Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Road Act”). Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter “former Road Act”) provides that “When an agent, employee, or other worker of an individual commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with his/her individual’s business, he/she shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article 83(1) of the former Road Act, the same shall also apply to the individual” (Article 2010Hun-Ga23, 24, 36, 39, 47, and 50, which shall be deemed retroactively null and void pursuant to the proviso of the Constitutional Court Act).

On the other hand, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively effective 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.