The defendant shall be innocent.

On June 13, 2006, the Defendant was a person who is engaged in transportation business as the owner of a vehicle A, and around 16:53 on June 13, 2006, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by loading freight of 11.6 tons or more in violation of the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by the Defendant’s employee B, while operating the said truck with respect to the Defendant’s business.

As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in this case, and the above summary order was notified and finalized.

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation pursuant to Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine pursuant to the same Article shall also be imposed on the corporation" (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17) in Article 86 of the former Road Act. Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect 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