The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, a juristic person established for the purpose of automobile transport business, etc., violated the provisions on the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority with respect to the Defendant’s business by loading and operating D truck with freight exceeding 11.7 tons of limited storages in excess of 10 tons on the D truck around 16:51 on December 10, 1994, in the vicinity of the Hasan-gun of the National Road No. 34 on December 16:51, 199.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the corporation's business, the portion that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provision shall also be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010, etc.). Thus, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively

Thus, 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.