In order to preserve road structure and prevent traffic danger, B, the Defendant’s employee, restricted the operation of vehicles exceeding 10 tons of gross weight and 40 tons of gross weight, but with respect to the Defendant’s business, on May 20, 2004, 10.02 tons of gross weight and 10.02 tons of gross weight and 4.14 tons of weight Restriction on the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the niven of the 10:21 on May 20, 2004.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, violates the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70, which is October 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to 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.