The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. A, an employee of the Defendant at 2012 Godan1048, violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority in the operation of B vehicles on the front day of the eromatic eroposive erosive erosive erosive erosive erosive erosive erosive erosive erosives

B. Around April 16, 1998, when C, an employee of the Defendant in the case of 2012 Highestest 1051, operated D vehicles on the front of the inspection site of the C/C on April 16, 1998, in relation to the Defendant’s duties, it violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.

C. Around 06:20 on May 25, 1996, E, an employee of the Defendant in the case of 2012 high group 1054, operated F vehicles on the front side of the gymal gymal gymal gymal gymal gymal, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, the Defendant violated the vehicle operation restriction by the road management authority.

On October 4, 1997, G, an employee of the defendant in the case of 2012 high group 1057, violated the restriction on the operation of H vehicles by the road management authority in the course of operating H vehicles on the front of the autopsy of the crackdown on the operation of zym-gu Automatic vehicles in South-gu at the port on October 1997 and October 19:27, 1997.

2. The Constitutional Court ruled that 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), which is the applicable provisions of the above facts charged, has lost its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality as of Oct. 28, 2010, 2010Hun-Ga14, 15 (Joint), 21 (Joint), 27 (Joint), 35 (Joint), 38 (Joint), 44 (Joint), and 70 (Joint).

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

The Institute of Jind Co., Ltd.