On April 19, 2002, around 10:25, the national highways No. 39 on the 10:25, the road in front of the inspection of the restriction on operation in the mountain, which is located in the front of the inspection of the restriction on operation, was operated in excess of 0.05 meters in violation of the width restriction while driving the above truck with respect to the defendant's duties.

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; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to reexamination and confirmed.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)). Accordingly, the above Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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