The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 02:18 on April 4, 1995, the Defendant’s employees B’s employees violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority in excess of 1.1 ton of the limited weight (10 ton) by carrying and operating the freight exceeding 10 ton of 11.1 ton of the limited 4 axiss of C Truck owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business at the 317km parallel location along the 317km parallel. In addition, the Defendant’s employees violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority.

2. As to the facts charged in this case, a public prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act, and the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 delivered on July 30, 2009) that "the above provision of the Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the above facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.