The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of A truck, and on April 25, 1994, at around 17:17, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management authority by running the said truck with the cargo loaded at the 11.3 tons and 10.8 tons at the 3 livestock shed, in excess of 10 tons of the restricted weight on the 2 livestock in front of the 10 tons of the 10.3 tons of the above truck in front of the YY-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun

2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), and this court issued a summary order of KRW 300,00 to the defendant as of July 4, 1994, and the above summary order was finalized after the defendant was notified of the above summary order, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that the above provision was unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has 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.