The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating the vehicle with a limited weight exceeding 11.2 tons over 10 tons on September 24, 1993, around the road at the port of the South Sea Highway index business office, around 12:59 with respect to his duties.

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 amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), and this court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant as of May 2, 1994. The above summary order was finalized after the defendant was notified of the above summary order, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that the above provision of the Act 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.