The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of A truck. B, who is the Defendant’s employee, violated the regulations governing the restricted vehicles for operation by loading and operating the 11.5 tons of each of the 11.5 tons on the 2nd and 3nd and the 19.5 tons on the 19:50, 193, and on the 2nd and 3nd and the 19:50, 193, 193.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993 and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 30,000 to the defendant as of December 7, 1993, and the summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant, but the defendant filed a request for review of the summary order that became final and conclusive on the ground that the above legal provision was unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense pursuant to Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine pursuant to the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.