A. On April 10, 1994, at the 05:20 m upstream line business office of Honam Expressway, the 79 km point of 10 km, the said branch is operated by loading more than 1.1 ton, 5 ton, and 1.3 ton, respectively, of B freight vehicles, even though the said branch is a restricted place where it is unable to operate more than 10 metric tons during a stable;

B. At around 06:10 on May 8, 1994, 06: 23 of the National Road No. 1994, YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYY

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 and 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) to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, in Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 84 (1) and (2) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article." (The Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201, and the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga18 Decided October 25, 201) that "if the corporation commits an offence under Article 84 (1) and (2), the corporation

Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.