The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged is the person who is engaged in transportation business as the owner of a freight truck, and around 18:25 April 4, 2007, the defendant violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management agency by loading freight of 11.29 tons and loading and operating limited weight of 10 tons in excess of 1.29 tons by operating the above truck with respect to the defendant's business.

Judgment

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case

As to section 86 and section 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), among the facts charged of this case

As to the provision of the Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008), a public prosecution was instituted by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, and the above summary order was notified to the defendant 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 worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business on July 30, 2009 (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008) that "if the agent, employee or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article in the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, Oct. 28, 201; Constitutional Court Order 4920, Oct. 28, 201 (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005); Constitutional Court Order 2015Hun-Ga47, Apr. 27, 2015).

If so, this.