The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 3, 1997, the Defendant is the owner of BF vehicle, and C, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by loading the scrap metal of 11.1 ton and 11.25 ton on the third axis of the said vehicle in excess of 10 ton of the limitation-scale weight at the seal-control inspection station located in the Sari-ri National Road 34 on the Sari-ri-si, Sasan National Road 34 on October 3, 1997.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005). The summary order of KRW 5

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article 83 (1) 2" (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that "if the corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article) is in violation of the Constitution. The above provision

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