The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 19, 2008, at around 16:11 on February 19, 2008, the Defendant, as his employee, operated the said vehicle in excess of 1.3t, 1.01t, 4-01t, and 40.46t of each of the limitation criteria in the vicinity of the control station of the red-feasible vehicles located in the national highway 1.3t, 1.3t, 1.01t, 0.46t around the national highway 1.3t, 1.3t, 1.01t, and 0.46t in relation to his duties.

2. The prosecutor brought a prosecution against the above charged facts by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) 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; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts.

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine shall also be imposed on the corporation concerned" (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun-Ga17, Jul. 30, 2009) that the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.