The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of HF vehicle. At around 1:03 on September 4, 2006, I, who is the Defendant’s employee, violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority by carrying 1.16 tons on the 4 axis of the said vehicle, exceeding 10 tons of the limited storage weight, at the point of 32.2 km at the outer intersection in Seoul, the outer cycle road, the outer intersection, and at the point of 32.2km in Seoul.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; the summary order of KRW 500,000 was notified in this court.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if 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 be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article" in Article 86 of the above Act is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga17 dated July 30, 2009) (the Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga17 Decided July 30, 209). The above provision of the above Act, the applicable

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.