C On December 22, 1995, around 20:47, at the upstream line of a border area of 63.5§¯, in order to preserve the structure of the above road and prevent traffic congestion, C, despite the fact that vehicles exceeding 10 tons of a stable and 40 tons of a stable are unable to be operated, C was loaded on the third axis of the above vehicle in excess of 10.3 tons and 11.1 ton of a 4 stable, and the Defendant caused C, who is its employee, to commit an offense in connection with the Defendant’s duties as above.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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) to the above facts charged, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.

In this regard, after the above summary order has become final and conclusive, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, Article 86 of the above Act shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The part “” was retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court Decision 14,15,21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) rendered on October 28, 2010 by the Constitutional Court.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the defendant did not obtain the consent of the defendant, and thus,