The defendant is innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles of the road management authority by allowing his employees to operate a freight vehicle exceeding 4.58 tons on the front of the document and the letter of confirmation document, in the form of a document, in which the employees of the Defendant had their employees, in the form of a document, in which it is located at the net time, at around 10:33 on November

With respect to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision," and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized after receiving the summary order.

However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on July 30, 2009 with respect to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 Decided July 30, 2009). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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