The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 24, 1994, at around 15:38, the Defendant was the owner of a truck A, and around January 24, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on operation by loading the freight of 11.1 ton on the third axis in excess of 10 ton of the limited reduction weight at the same place of business in front of the same orchard, and operating the said vehicle.

2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), and this court issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 to the defendant as of June 10, 1994. The above summary order was finalized after the notice to the defendant was notified at that time, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that the above provision was unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.