A. On June 2, 1994, around 09:35, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the measurement of the load while the Defendant’s employee was driving the C Freight Vehicles owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s duties, while driving the C Freight Vehicles owned by the Defendant.

B. On October 11, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by failing to comply with the request of the road management agency for the load measurement while the Defendant’s employee was driving a C Freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s duties, in addition to the 09:50 on the Dog-ri, Dog-ri, Dog-ri, Dog-ri, Dog-ri, 904.

2. With respect to each of the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor of the judgment shall also be punished by a fine as provided in the corresponding Article in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995).

A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part "," and the defendant received a summary order subject to review and the summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.

In this regard, on October 25, 2012, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga18 Decided October 25, 2012). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the provision of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes 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 Criminal Procedure Act.