The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 28, 2003, at around 11:27, A, an employee of the Defendant, operated the Defendant’s vehicle at a Gun branch office located 10km in the direction of the new highway along the Young-dong Highway, in excess of 10 km of the limited axis, and operated the 5 livestock vehicle at the Gun branch office in excess of 10 km of the limited axis, in excess of 11.3 tons of the 5 livestock, thereby violating the restriction on the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor was prosecuted 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), and the summary order against which the above court is sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 was notified and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where 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 for negligence under the corresponding Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)).

According to the decision of unconstitutionality, the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, which relate to the criminal defendant's employees, were retroactively invalidated.

3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty of the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.