The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is the owner of B's C's C', and the defendant's employee B violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency in relation to the defendant's duties by loading the 12.3 tons of the above vehicle at the four axiss and 13.2 tons of the above vehicle, despite the restriction on the operation of the vehicle on the road of the Eup school located in the Eup school located in the Doedo, the Doedoe, the Doe, the Doedoe, was restricted to 10 tons of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle.

Judgment

Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) provides that "where an employee or any other employee of a corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga, Oct. 28, 2010, shall be 14,15,21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint)) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Oct. 28, 2010), the part of the said Article, which is the legal provision applicable to the instant facts charged, retroactively becomes void.

Therefore, the defendant's case constitutes a case that does not constitute an offense and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified under Article 440 of the same Act.