The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant had an employee A drive B car with respect to his duties, and around 19:03 on January 27, 1997, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by driving the freight loaded on the 2 axis in front of the Gu Ri office on the 2 axis of the Gu-ri Highway.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged of this case, and filed a summary order, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court on October 28, 2010, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating the provisions of Article 83 (1) 2 in Article 86 of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

Article 47(2) proviso of the Constitutional Court Act provides that “The Constitutional Court 2010 Constitutional Court 38 Constitutional Court 2010 Hun-Ga rendered a decision that the provision is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court 2010 Hun-Ga 38 Hun-Ga).” This provision retroactively loses its effect

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.