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

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner and the user of B, and B around May 2, 2003, around 17:38, the Defendant operated the said vehicle while loaded with the cargo of 4.21 meters high at a height exceeding 4.2 meters from the 12.5 meters high on the above cargo truck at the Seocho-dong Highway 17:38, May 2, 2003, and thus, the Defendant violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation with respect to the Defendant’s business.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the above charged facts, and it was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act applied to this case on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant provision shall also be imposed on the corporation” (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act. In addition, if the Act or the Act retroactively becomes invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was not prosecuted for a crime subject to the relevant provision of the Act constitutes a crime subject to the said Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3859, Apr. 15, 2005).