The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of AF vehicle.

On December 16, 1996, 22:15, the Defendant’s user B: (a) loaded and operated the freight on the third axis of the above vehicle in excess of 10:2t in excess of 15.3km in front of the shop site of the road construction at a point 15.3km in front of the road construction site, thereby violating the vehicle operation restriction of the road management agency; (b) the Defendant had an employee commit the above-mentioned violation in relation to the Defendant’s duties on the said date, time and place.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005); and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to retrial.

In this regard, after the above summary order subject to review became final and conclusive, the part that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the juristic person, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the juristic person in violation of the Constitution," in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005).

“The Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga, October 28, 2010, rendered 14,15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) of the instant facts charged, thereby retroactively null and void.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case do not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced under the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act.