The defendant shall be innocent.

1. A summary of the facts charged is the driver of C Truck, and the defendant is a corporation that owns the C Truck with a corporate body established for the purpose of cargo transportation services, etc.

B On November 30, 2003, around 21:17, 2003, he loaded an overfit with the above cargo truck, and violated the regulations governing the restriction on operation of vehicles by having B operate the vehicle more than 0.2m higher than the control standard by having B operate the vehicle more than 0.2m higher than the control standard, in order to preserve the structure of the road and prevent the risks of operation at the control station of restricted vehicles located in the new Hag-gun, North Hag-gun, North Hag-gun, North Hag-gun, along the 36th line of the national highways.

2. Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which is the applicable provisions to the facts charged in this case, "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation 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." The part that "a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality [the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)], which is the applicable provisions to the facts charged in this case.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the former part of Article 325