The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 8, 2005, B, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on vehicle operation by overworking the vehicle at a 247.3km point in the central expressway direction at around 11 March 2005, when the total weight exceeds 40 tons.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged in the instant case, and issued a summary order subject to review by recognizing that the prosecutor was guilty.

However, after the summary order subject to review becomes final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the above Act, is in violation of the Constitution (Article 83 (1) 2, 201Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the part of the above legal provision, which is the penal provision for the facts charged of this case,

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