The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged is the owner of B vehicle, and around 16:03 on September 6, 2005, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority by loading more than 4.2m high height of 4.2m at a height of 4.21m, in violation of the restriction on the height of the Defendant’s work while driving the said vehicle at a 26.9 kilometer located at the store of the store of the entrance of the outer cycle Highway (Seoul).

As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor charged a public action by applying 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; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in this case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

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 is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)). Accordingly, the above Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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