The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on September 23, 2004, at around 07:24, the Defendant: (b) was suspected of having violated the restrictions on the operation of automobiles at the 10 tons of total weight, 40 tons of load, 4.2m of load height, 2.5m of width, 16.7m of length, and 16.7m in length; and (c) was asked by the employees to check whether the restriction on the operation of automobiles was violated; and (d) the Defendant failed to comply with the demand of the employees to check whether the restriction on the operation was violated.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the facts charged of this case, and was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 86 and Article 83(1)3 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 2014) provides that “When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)3 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation” in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 12597, Dec. 29, 2011). Accordingly, according to the foregoing decision, the part of the above legal provision, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the proviso to Article 47(2) of the former Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 2014).

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.