The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of the B truck of A driving and the user of A. At around 00:20 on April 9, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by a road management authority as a vehicle loaded with a truck exceeding 10 tons, total weight of 40 tons, the height of loading 4 meters, 16.70 meters in length, and 2.50 meters in width, while the Defendant restricted the operation of a vehicle in excess of 10 tons, total weight of 40 tons, 16.70 meters in loading length, 3 meters in loading width, 24 meters in loading length, 0.5 meters in loading width, and 7.3 meters in loading length (waste disposal tank).

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

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act applied to this case on October 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or any other employee of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant provision shall also be imposed on the corporation” (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act. In a case where the Act or the Act retroactively becomes void due to the decision of unconstitutional, the defendant case that was not prosecuted by applying the relevant provision of the Act constitutes a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5389, Apr. 29, 297, 297.