The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is clearly written in the summary order subject to the Defendant’s review, that is, “ordinary cargo instead of a stock company,” is a clerical error in the name of “new

On July 19, 2002, around 04:47, A, an employee of the Korea Highway Corporation, at a point of 26.5 kilometers in the direction of the new highway, violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority, by operating B vehicles loaded with freight exceeding 10 tons out of 11.2 tons of the reduced legal limit load on B in front of the Dong Military Port Corporation, in front of the Dong Military Port Corporation.

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 reexamination was notified and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where 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 relevant Article," in Article 86 of the former Road Act (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that the provision of the above Act, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, 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.