The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 7, 2001, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on operation of an excessive vehicle by operating a vehicle with the gross weight of 40 tons exceeding 4.8 tons at a 159 km branch office in the Seoul direction of the Honam Highway at a 159 km branch office in the Seoul direction of the highway and thereby violating the restriction on operation of a vehicle owned by the Defendant.

2. On the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of December 30, 2005) to the facts charged in this case.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court shall, when 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 under Article 86 of the above Act, be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, October 28, 2010, rendered a decision that the part is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, October 28, 201).

According to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law, which is applicable to the above facts charged, was retroactively invalidated.

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.