The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: A, an employee of the defendant, is not able to operate a vehicle of this Do with a 10 ton of more than 1.1 ton of the stable, although a vehicle of this Do operated at the Sungnam-dong 39-13, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Manam-si, Manam-si, Manam-si, Manam-si, Manam-do 39-13, Manam-si, Manam-si, Manam-do, in order to preserve its structure and prevent danger, the vehicle of this Do cannot be operated in excess of 10 ton of the stable.

2. The judgment prosecutor applied Article 86 of the former Road Act to the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that if an employee of a juristic person commits an excessive violation in connection with the business of the juristic person, the portion of the fine is imposed on the juristic person in violation of the Constitution. According to the above decision, the above provision of the law, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, 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.