The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 22, 1994, at around 07:42 on December 22, 1994, the Defendant, the owner of A vehicle, and the Defendant’s employee B operated the said vehicle in a state where the weight of 10 tons exceeds 10 tons on the 4 axis of the said vehicle, and thus violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority.

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) to the above charged facts, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant as of April 25, 1995, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant requested re-adjudication of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provisions.

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.