The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of G 8.5 tons car trucks at G Hyundai, and H, an employee of the Defendant, operated the above truck with respect to the Defendant’s business. On February 17, 1998, around 13:59, the Defendant violated the road management authority’s restriction on the operation of the vehicle by loading the above truck with the truck loaded at the 11.4 tons more than 10 tons more than 10 tons more than 10 tons more than 10 tons more than 10 tons more than 11.4 tons more than 10 tons more than 10 tons more than 11.4 tons.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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) to the part that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding Article." The defendant was notified of a summary order subject to reexamination and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized.

However, on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) on October 28, 2010), thereby retroactively invalidated the above provision of the law in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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.