The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as his employee B, was the driver of C 11t cancer truck, violated the restriction on the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle by the road management authority, on September 20, 2003, by loading and operating the freight of 11.9t on the 2 axis of the above vehicle in excess of 10t of the limited weight of 406 km at the Busan located in the Busan located in the Busan located in the Busan located in the train.

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 charged facts.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act in violation of Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the same Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint Court Decision) of Article 86 of the former Road Act, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant

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

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.