The defendant is innocent.

1. Around March 8, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by a road management authority by operating a 5 tons truck with a gross weight exceeding 1.1 ton owned by the Defendant (on board exceeding 2.1 ton) of A 5 tons in relation to the Defendant’s business at the Gu Ri business office located at a point of 26.8 km on the old-ri-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-S

[2013dan46] On April 15, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating a Ri business office located at a point 64.5 km of Honam Expressway as of April 15, 1994, where the Defendant’s employee exceeded the minimum weight of B 17.5 tons of a truck owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business (at a point 1 ton of a 3 stable and a point 1.1 ton of a 4 stable).

2. The prosecutor instituting a public action by applying Articles 86, 84 subparagraph 1, and 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) to each of the facts charged in the instant case, but the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act with respect to the business of the corporation, the portion that "where the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation shall also be imposed on the corporation, which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 2011). The

Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, it shall be acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.