The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant had an employee C drive D vehicle with respect to his duties. At around December 16, 1993, at around 21:50 on December 16, 1993, C violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the 12t, 5 12t, 6 14t of gross weight on the 4th 12t, 5 12t, and 60t of gross weight on the 4th 4th 12t, 6th 14t of gross weight.

2. The prosecutor applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to a summary order concerning the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and confirmed.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2011HunGa24, Constitutional Court Order) that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under Article 84." This provision is retroactively null and void 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