A. On Aug. 9, 2005, at around 00:12, 00: (a) in the area where the width of the vehicle loaded in the vehicle cannot be operated exceeding 2.5m by the clive police station located in the clive area where 3 lines of the national highway No. 3, the 3 lines of the national highways were loaded at around 1.2m of the width of the restriction; and (b) in the area where the width of the vehicle loaded in C is over 3.7m of the steel structure;

B. On September 1, 2005, around 01:30 of the national highways around 01:30, the steel structure was loaded at the inspection station of the vehicle with the 3.2m width at the 3.2m radius in the above vehicle at the location of the 3rd line traffic-restricted vehicle.

2. The prosecutor brought a public action against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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 “former Road Act”). However, the part that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act due to the decision of the Constitutional Court on Oct. 28, 2010, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 1014, Oct. 14, 2010; 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 of the same Act, the portion that “if the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the same Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article” becomes retroactively null and void.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.