The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 02:24 November 15, 1997, A, the Defendant’s employee of the facts charged, committed a violation of the Defendant’s duties by carrying freight on a 2 livestock shed in excess of 11 ton, 11.2 ton, 3 ton, and operating a B freight vehicle in excess of 10 ton of 11.2 ton, and thereby violating the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter “former Road Act”), and accordingly, the summary order subject to retrial was notified and confirmed.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence 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," in Article 86 of the former Road Act (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that "if the corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article." The above decision

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.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.