The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that around October 17, 2002, around 07:28, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated a B vehicle in the state of 11.5t in the direction of the road management authority by operating the vehicle at the 32.2km Singggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggging business

On the other hand, the prosecutor prosecuted the facts charged of this case by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 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), and the summary order of KRW 500,000 was notified and finalized in this court.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence 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," the part of the decision that "the fine under the corresponding Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution, shall be imposed on the Constitutional Court (see Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the above facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.

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