On May 2, 1994, at around 14:45, the defendant's employee B operated the freight vehicle owned by the defendant in excess of 10 tons of the weight of the 10 tons, which is the criteria for restriction on operation, in front of the gold sulg in front of the gold sulg located in the Gyeonggi-gun court of Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, and violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by operating the freight vehicle owned by the defendant in excess of 3 tons in the 2 axis and the 3 axis.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.

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 on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court has issued the above summary order, and on December 29, 2011, Article 86 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the part is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.