The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A. In the facts charged, the Defendant, at around 02:00 on December 24, 1993, operated the vehicle with 13.2 tons exceeding 3.2 tons, and 13 tons exceeding 3 tons in each of the above vehicles, even though he could not operate more than 10 tons of the 4 lines of the national highway located in the Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-do.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the above facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant on Feb. 26, 1994. The above summary order was finalized after the notice to the defendant was notified, but the defendant requested re-adjudication of the above summary order on the ground that the above provisions became unconstitutional.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision 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." The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision of the law was against the Constitution in Article 86 (1) 24 of the above Act. In accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty of the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure