The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 2, 1994, at around 11:17, 1994, the Defendant’s employee A, with respect to the Defendant’s business, operated B truck owned by the Defendant and violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority by operating B truck as loaded more than 1.8 tons at the 4-scale expressway business office.

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 the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, after the summary order subject to review became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on December 29, 201 that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995)" in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) that "where the agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation shall also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution (Ruling 2011Hun-Ga24

Thus, the above facts charged 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.