A. On February 24, 1994, around 17:57, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by loading and operating freight in excess of the limitation on the vehicle of CF owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business.

B. On March 23, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by loading and operating freight exceeding the limit-scale weight of CF vehicles owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business on the road front of the check-up station in charge of the control of traffic distance location at around 21:05 on March 23, 1994.

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.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on December 29, 201 as to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). 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, since each of the facts charged of this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, all of the facts charged of this case shall be acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.