On October 7, 200, J, a defendant's employee, operated the above vehicle at a 3.0-meter radius exceeding 2.5 meters in width of the vehicle's restriction, around 10:20 on October 7, 200, in order to operate the vehicle prior to the examination of movement restriction on the line 42 on the line of Il-ri National Highway 42 on the two sides.

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 wholly amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged, and the defendant was charged with a summary order subject to retrial, and the summary order subject to retrial became final and conclusive.

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.