The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 06:58 on December 29, 1994, the Defendant, as the driver of the instant case, violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority in relation to the Defendant’s business by loading sand of 10.7 tons at the third axis of D vehicles at the d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle d vehicle 1.1 tons

2. The prosecutor charged the defendant with the charge of this case by applying Articles 86, 84 subparag. 1 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged of this case.

However, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 201) provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Article in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall be imposed on the corporation, which shall also be imposed on the corporation, is in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24, Dec. 29, 201)." The provision of the same Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the former Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May

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