The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation for the purpose of cargo transport business, etc., which is the owner of A truck. On April 16, 2005, B, an employee of B, was in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle with the load loaded with the cargo of 45.63 tons in total, in excess of 10 tons of the festival weight, 11.52 tons of the said vehicle at the 5 axis, and the aggregate of 40 tons of gross restricted weight.

2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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 facts charged in the instant case.

However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28, 2010)." Accordingly, according to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the provision of the above Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, retroactively loses its effect.

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.