The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of the vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management authority by loading the 11.2 tons of the above vehicle on the 5 axis in excess of 10 tons of limited storage weight at the Masan Business Office located at the parallel of the Southern Sea Highway (385.2km) around February 6, 1996.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005). The summary order of KRW 5

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article 83 (1) 2" (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010) that "if the corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article) is in violation of the Constitution. The above provision

Thus, 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.