The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that at around 10:34 on January 11, 2007, A, an employee of the Defendant, loaded and operated a cargo of at least 11.14 tons exceeding 10 tons from among the restricted storages of the freight vehicles, which are the criteria for restriction, on the vehicle B owned by the Defendant, at a malicious station located in the direction of 273km from the coastline, and violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority, by loading and operating the freight of at least 10 tons from the restricted storages of the freight vehicles, which are the criteria for restriction, on the vehicle B owned by the Defendant at the direction-setting station located in the coastline 264.6km from January 12, 2007.

2. The public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution against the facts charged by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding provision." Accordingly, the summary order subject to review against the defendant issued by the court became final and conclusive.

However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on July 30, 2009 with respect to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 Decided July 30, 2009). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.