The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On November 28, 199, around 15:44 on November 28, 199, B, an employee of the defendant, operated the truck with freight of 11.6 tons among the 3 livestocks, and 11.5 tons among the 4 livestocks, in a state where the freight exceeds 10 tons among the limited axiss.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the above charged facts.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if 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, the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "if such an offence is committed, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article" (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14,15,21,27, 27, 35, 38, 444,70 (combined)) is against the Constitution, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect.

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, it is judged not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of this decision under the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act