A. On October 26, 1993, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the Road Management Agency by loading and operating the freight exceeding the limit weight of the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s duties at the street of 111 km down at the speed of the mid-to mid-distance 14:51 on October 26, 1993.

B. On October 26, 1993, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by loading and operating the cargo exceeding the limit-scale weight of the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s duties at the street of 111 km down at the speed of the mid-to long-distance speed of 14:51.

2. As to the facts charged of this case, the prosecutor of the judgment shall, in case where an agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision of Article 86.

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