The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of the ITrack.

On August 23, 2004, J, the Defendant’s employee, around 21:19, in connection with the Defendant’s service, operated the said vehicle in the state of 50 tons of total weight of 12.15 tons, 3.6 tons of weight, 5.15 tons of length, 10.8 meters in length, 0.8 meters in width, 0.8 meters in width, 52.15 tons in total weight, 2.65 tons in length, 2.13.65 tons in length, 3.15 meters in length, 2.15 meters in length, 2.15 meters in length, 2.15 meters in length, 3.3 meters in width, and 3.3 meters in width.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged, and the defendant was charged with a summary order subject to retrial and confirmed.

However, on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which applies to this case, violates the Constitution (Article 86 of the former Road Act, which provides that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation)," and thereby, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.