The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On August 30, 1994, around 07:00 on August 30, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s employee, while driving the Defendant’s business, was requested by the road management authority to measure the load of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (b) the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority without justifiable grounds.

2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the facts charged in this case by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 (2) with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision."

However, on October 25, 2012, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (see Constitutional Court Order 2012HunGa18, Oct. 25, 2012). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated 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.