The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority by operating a J vehicle at two places with the 11.87t status at around May 27, 2006, at around 12:17, Young-dong Line 61km in relation to the Defendant’s business.

On the other hand, the prosecutor prosecuted the facts charged of this case by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008), and the summary order of KRW 500,000 was notified and finalized in this court.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the corresponding Article shall be imposed on the corporation, the corporation shall also be imposed on the violation of the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 2008HunGa17 Decided July 30, 2009). The above provision of the above Act, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.

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.