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

1. On April 13, 2006, the Defendant is the owner of C truck, and around 06:37, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by allowing D, its employee, to operate the cargo loaded in excess of 0.5 meters of the aforementioned restriction width, on the 10 tons of gross weight, 40 tons of height, 4 meters in length, 16.7 meters in width, and 2.5 meters in width, in order to preserve the road’s structure and prevent the risks of traffic.

2. The above facts charged fall under Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same), but the Constitutional Court has retroactively invalidated the corresponding part of Article 86 of the former Road Act, which stated that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the provision that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2, a fine under Article 83(1) of the former Road Act shall be imposed on the corporation in accordance with the decision that it

(See Constitutional Court en banc Order 2008Hun-Ga17, Jul. 30, 2009). 3. As such, since the facts charged in this case do not constitute a crime, the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act should be announced publicly.