The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 11:20 on October 28, 1994, B, an employee of the Defendant, operated a road in front of the mobile vehicle inspection station located on the line No. 176 at the Hannam-si, Hannam-si, the Do, where it is a restricted zone in which more than 10 tons per a stable cannot be operated, and operated in excess of 3 tons at the 2 stable, 13 tons at the 3 stable and 13 tons at the 3 stable.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 84 subparagraph 1, and 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to summary indictment as to the facts charged of this case, and applied Articles 86, 84 subparagraph 1, and 54 (1) of the former Road Act. The summary order issued by this court on Jun. 23, 1995 is the same year.

8. 1. It is finalized as it is.

On December 29, 2011, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an employee or any other employee of a corporation commits an act in violation of Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court decided that the provision that "if such employee or any other employee of the corporation commits an act in violation of Article 84 (1) 1 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article (Supreme Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). According to the

3. Conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime not committed.

In accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition that the defendant shall be acquitted.