The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 17:33 on May 24, 1994, the summary of the facts charged committed a violation of the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation by running the vehicle while being loaded with freight exceeding 10.8 tons in the second axis of B in excess of 10.8 tons, and 11.2 tons in the third axis in excess of 10.3 tons in the inspection station located in the outside-gun, Man-gun, Man-gun.

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; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article." (The Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201) that the part of the same Article, which "if the corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.