The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around September 18, 200, at around 11, 200, the Defendant, an employee of C, operated a 11.5 metric tons of freight on a stable at the Dong Daegu Business Office located at a point of 305 km Seoul (Seoul), thereby violating the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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), and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, after a summary order subject to review becomes final and conclusive, the part of Article 86 of the former Road Act that "where 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, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article 83 (1) 2 shall also be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) of the same Act) is in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, the part of the above legal provision that is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged of this case, retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.