The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On November 24, 1995, around 14:40 on November 24, 1995, the summary of the facts charged is C Masters of the freight truck driver, and the Defendant is the owner of the above vehicle, and C Masters of the C Masters of the C Masters, who are the Defendant’s employees, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by loading and operating the freight exceeding 10 tons of the 12.4 tons of the 12.4 tons of the flos

2. As to the above charged facts, 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), the Seoul District Court issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 to the defendant as of May 1, 1996, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the said summary order on December 5, 2012 on the ground that the above provision of the Act was unconstitutional.

However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that when an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.With respect to the portion, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "the Constitutional Court's decision (2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 25, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)") on October 28, 2010, the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.