At around 01:43 on November 29, 1994, C, an employee of the Defendant, operated the said vehicle with the load of at least 11.5 tons on the 2 axis of the said vehicle in excess of 10 tons from the limited axis at a tent located at a point of 83.5km of the Highway, and violated the restriction on operation by the road management authority.

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. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Article in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined in accordance with the pertinent Article." (The Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201) is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the said provision of the Act retroactively

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.