The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The Defendant, in the facts charged, was the user of B who driven A Scarn Track, and B around August 7, 2004, around 248.5 km in front of the Seogsan Office located at a point of 248.5 km in order to operate the above vehicle with a gross weight exceeding 44.14 tons, thereby violating the restrictions on the operation of the vehicle of the Road Management Agency in relation to the Defendant’s duties.

2. The prosecutor shall also impose a fine under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the above facts charged if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation.

“A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part of the same Act, and the summary order against the Defendant was issued and confirmed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22538, Oct. 28, 2010). In such a case, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law on October 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the facts charged of 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, and the summary thereof is publicly announced pursuant to the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act.