The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On April 25, 200, at around 13:35, the Defendant’s employee C was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle at the road management agency’s office by carrying the 10 tons of the 3rd metric truck onto the said 3rd king-si Do-dong 312 on April 25, 200, in order to preserve the structure of the road and to prevent the danger of traffic. However, the Defendant’s employee restricted the operation of the 10 tons of the 10-do Do-dong Do-dong 31.1 tons of the 3rd Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong.

2. The judgment and the conclusion of the prosecutor charged the facts charged of this case by applying Articles 86 and 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) to Article 86 and Article 83 (1) 2 of the same Act. The Constitutional Court held that the agent, employee or other worker of the corporation committed a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 of the same Act in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The part” was decided to be in violation of the Constitution [the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga23, 24, 36, 39, 47, 50 decided October 28, 2010 (merger)]. According to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision, which is a legal provision applicable to the facts charged in this case, was retroactively invalidated.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced under Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.