The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around August 11, 2004, when the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated a B truck with respect to the Defendant’s business, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by operating more than 0.50 meters wide, 3.0 meters in width, even though the 27-line National Road 10 tons of total weight, 40 tons in length, 16.7 meters in width, 2.5 meters in height, and 4.0 meters in width, on August 4, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by operating more than 0.50 meters long.

[2014 Highest 231] The Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated a D truck with regard to the Defendant’s business, and operated the D truck on October 23, 2004, which was in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation by operating the 2.7 meters wide by more than 0.2 meters, even though the 17-line line on the national highway located in the Blari National Road, in the superior of the Blari-gun of the former Blari, was a restricted road with a width of less than 2.5 meters in order to preserve the road’s structure and prevent traffic.

[2014 Highest 232] The Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated D Trucks in connection with the Defendant’s business, which was in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation by running the 2 axis to 3.65 tons of 13.65 tons of 13.65 tons of 13.65 tons of 13.65 tons of 13.65 tons of 13.65 tons of 13.

2. As to Article 86 and Article 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), which is the applicable provisions for each of the facts charged in this case, the Constitutional Court held that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act concerning the business of the corporation, the Constitutional Court shall also impose a fine under the relevant Article."