The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant had an employee A drive B truck with respect to his duties, and around 10:09 on September 1, 2003, A violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by carrying freight of 11.90t and 11.250t on the 3 axiss exceeding 10t out of the limited axiss at the personnel inspection room located in the top line of Jeju Southern-gun, Jeju-gun, in excess of 10t of the limited axis.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case to file a summary order, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to retrial and confirmed.

However, the Constitutional Court decided October 28, 2010 Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 (merger) 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, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation" in Article 86 of the former Road Act is in violation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the above provision of the law is retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.