The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant, as his employee, committed the following acts in relation to the Defendant’s business, as a person driving a DNA vehicle owned by the Defendant, A, who is a driver of A, A, A, and A.

1. On July 3, 1996, around 20:02, at the front of the place of business of the Corporation in Busan, the Republic of Korea operated the said truck as loaded more than 1.5 tons with the cargo exceeding 1.5 tons at the fourth axis of the said truck, thereby violating the restriction on the operation of the vehicles of the Road Management Agency.

2. The preceding paragraph; and

8. Around 30 04:04, at the front of the construction index office of Korea, the truck as referred to in the preceding paragraph was loaded more than 0.2 tons at the 2 axis of the truck as set forth in the preceding paragraph, and was operated by Accenture A, while exceeding 1.2 tons, thereby violating the restriction on operation of the vehicle of the former Port Management Agency.

Judgment

With respect to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding 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).

A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part "," and the defendant received a summary order subject to review and the summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 with respect to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010) and thus, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the provision of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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