D, on March 20, 1994, around 15:25, around 15:25, in relation to the Defendant’s business, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating the truck with the cargo loaded with the cargo loaded with the cargo loaded with the cargo loaded with the cargo to 12.0 tons at 2 livestocks in excess of 10 tons of the limited axis.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 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 charged facts and prosecuted the prosecution.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined in accordance with the pertinent provision shall also be fined in accordance with the Constitution" (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 dated December 29, 201), which applies to this case, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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.