The defendant shall be innocent.

1. With respect to the Defendant’s business, at around 10:52 on October 11, 1993, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated the Defendant’s business in excess of 14 tons at the second axis of C heavy-term vehicle owned by the Defendant at the inspection station of C heavy-term vehicle, which is located in the Defendant, at around 10:52, 14 tons, and 14 tons at the third axis.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 15, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to review was notified and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive on December 29, 201, the Constitutional Court rendered that "where an agent, employee, or any other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation, as well as the corporation, in violation of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201)" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, the part of the above provision of the Act, which is a applicable provision to the facts charged, has retroactively lost its effect.

Therefore, 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.