The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant violated the restriction on operation under Article 54(1) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) and operated by his employee, thereby committing a violation under Article 83(1)2.

Violation of restrictions on the temporary operation of place of employee vehicle number C C C on June 28, 2007, at around 18:04, 96.9km branch office in Seoul.9km branch office in the direction of Seoul.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to retrial and confirmed.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive on July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17). Accordingly, the part of the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) 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 not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.