The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of A vehicle. On February 18, 1994, at around 22:53, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s employee, operated the said vehicle in a state where he is loaded with grain of 11.1 ton more than 10 tons, at the entrance of a rice office near Ansan-si, Annsan-si, in connection with his duties, and thus violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority.

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 amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995). Accordingly, this court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant as of June 24, 1994. The above summary order was finalized after the notification to the defendant, 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.