The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On June 8, 1993, at around 14:40 on June 14:40, 1993, the driver C of the Company B, who is a summary of the facts charged, driven a D truck loaded on the national highway of the Department of D Trucks (2.8 tons, 3 stable 12 tons, and 10 tons, with a load loaded on a container in the national highway of the Department of D Trucks (2.8 tons, 3 stable 2 tons).

Although the defendant should exercise considerable attention to and supervision over C not to operate more than 10 tons per stable, the defendant neglected to do so and caused C to load more than 10 tons on the same vehicle at the same time and time.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 1 and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts.

On November 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2011HunGa24, Constitutional Court Order) that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under Article 84 (2) of the Act shall also be imposed on the corporation." This provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions shall be deemed to be a crime.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.