The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the B truck driver, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle. A, who is the employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by loading and operating the freight of more than 11.1 ton of the 10 tons of the 11.1 ton of the 10 tons of the storage of the above truck restriction axis at a point of 71.45 km on the coast (on September 1, 1999) around 20:00.

2. As to the above facts charged, a summary order of KRW 50,00 was issued to the defendant on January 10, 200 by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) as to the above facts charged. The above summary order was finalized around that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on January 21, 2013 on the ground that the above legal provision was unconstitutional.

However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that when an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.With respect to the portion, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "the Constitutional Court's decision (2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 25, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)") on October 28, 2010, the above provision of the Act 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.