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

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is the owner of C Driving D Freight and C’s user. C around 12:35 August 27, 2006, at the point of the coastline 316.9km (Wook) from each transmission business office, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the Defendant’s business by operating the freight loaded with the freight exceeding 45.64 tons of gross weight exceeding 40 tons.6 tons.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts.

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined under Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act (see Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, July 30, 200), which applies in this case, the portion of the above Article of the Road Act retroactively lost its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.