The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant had his employee B drive the C Truck on March 31, 2005, and around March 19:18, 2005, B violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by carrying freight exceeding 11.43t of the 2 axiss exceeding 10t of the restricted axis and operating the said vehicle.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to a summary order as to the facts charged of this case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, the Constitutional Court decided October 28, 2010 Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 (merger) that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation" in Article 86 of the former Road Act is in violation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the above provision of the law is retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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