B, around 17:43 on September 3, 2004, operated the above cargo vehicle on the street above 14 kilometers in front of the roof 14 kilometers in the East Sea Highway, which is located in the 17:5-72 of the East Sea Highway, and violated the restrictions on the operation of the road by operating the vehicle loaded with mechanical equipment with 10 tons or 1.93 tons exceeding 1.93 tons in the said vehicle.

The defendant, who is an employee of the defendant, committed the above violation in relation to his duties.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) 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 charged facts, and the prosecution was instituted by applying Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1), and the summary order of KRW 300,000 was notified and finalized in this court.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 86 of the above Act that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) of the Constitutional Court Act). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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