The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around May 3, 1994, the Defendant: (a) around 22:08, operated a 2.3 tons weight exceeding a total of 2.3 tons by loading and operating a 11 ton on the 2st, 3rd and 11.3 tons of freight on the Defendant’s business at the front of the electric station, which is a point of 79 km at the seat point of the Honam Highway; (b) around May 3, 1994, at the front of the electric station.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 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 of this case.

However, in Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offense provided for in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article” (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201) is in violation of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. In conclusion, 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