The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On September 5, 2006, around 07:09, the Defendant violated the Defendant’s employee’s restriction on the operation of vehicles by carrying the freight exceeding the limit on A-Vehicles owned by the Defendant on the street at a bus located at a point of 307 km away from the mid-term Highway, which is located at a point of 307 km from the mid-term Highway.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) to the part that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding Article," and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized after receiving a summary order subject to review.

However, on July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, July 30, 2009). Accordingly, 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 in 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.