The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On July 6, 1993, around 23:21, 1993, the Defendant’s employees (a summary order subject to review: 93 high-level 24009, Jan. 31, 1994) operated B freight vehicles owned by the Defendant and violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority by operating the Defendant’s B freight vehicles at the location of the Seoul Highway Corporation at the seat of the Seoul Expressway Corporation, as the Defendant was loaded more than 1.3 tons at the seat of the Seoul Expressway Corporation.

B. Around March 6, 1996, an employee C of the Defendant’s 2013 Highest 1673 (Order of Summary: 96 highest 16 highest 16726, Nov. 5, 1996) violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating D freight vehicles owned by the Defendant as loaded more than 0.2 tons at the Seoul business office, which is a point of 20.4 km away from the Gyeong Highway, around March 6, 1996.

C. On October 28, 1995, around 18:53 on October 28, 1995, the Defendant’s employees C violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating a D freight vehicle owned by the Defendant while the Defendant was loaded more than 1.3 tons at a 2nd 423.5km located in the upstream Line located in Busan located at a Busan located area.

2. The public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 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; Act No. 2013, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 4920, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court of Korea (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) as agent, employee, and other factors of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995).