The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A in charge.

At around 21:40 on November 29, 1993, B, an employee of the defendant, operated the cargo loaded with the cargo of 11.2 tons in the 2 axis in excess of 10 tons of the restricted axis at the inspection station of the regional highway on the expressway on the South Sea.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged, and filed a prosecution against the defendant by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act. A summary order subject to retrial was issued and confirmed around that time.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court shall, where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to this case, be punished by a fine referred to in corresponding Article even to the corporation.

Article 47(2) proviso of the Constitutional Court Act (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) declares that the part of “” is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga, Dec. 29, 201) and thus, the said provision of the Act was retroactively null and void in accordance with the proviso of

In a case 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 constitutes a case where the defendant's case was not committed as a crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do9037, Apr. 15, 2005; 91Do2825, May 8, 1992). The facts charged constitute a case where the facts charged are not committed as a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.