The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant is the owner of B truck, and around 13:00 on July 2, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by allowing C, its employees, to operate a vehicle exceeding 10 tons, total weight of 40 tons, height of 4 meters, length of 16.7 meters, width of 2.5 meters in order to preserve the road and prevent the danger of traffic. However, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by allowing C, which had been loaded more than 1.53 tons of the 3 stable load and 1.53 tons of the 4 stable load.

2. The above facts charged constitute Article 86, Article 83 (1) 2, and Article 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), but the Constitutional Court held that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act with respect to the business of the corporation, the corresponding part of Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the decision that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act, the corresponding part of Article 86 of the former Road Act shall also be punished by

The Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14,15,21,27,35,38,44,70 (merged) Decided October 28, 2010). 3. As such, the instant facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the instant judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.