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

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: “B is a construction machinery operator, the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle for the purpose of transportation business, etc. B, around 1:17 May 2, 1994, on the road on the 39 line of the National Highway No. 39 on the 10 tons of the above vehicle, which is more than 12.6 tons of more than 10 tons of the restricted axis, and more than 10 tons of more than 12.2 tons of the restricted axis on the third axis, and the defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle.”

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) to the above facts charged. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation, even if such a violation is made" in Article 86 of the above Act (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 2011) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2, a fine under the relevant provision

3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does 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 notified under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this decision is delivered