The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On October 23, 200, at around 20:02 on October 23, 200, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on operation for the purpose of maintaining road structure and preventing traffic risks by operating the B cargo loaded with freight exceeding 10 tons of 2.52 tons from the vehicle control inspection room in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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; hereinafter “former Road Act”) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to review was notified to the defendant and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant Article," the part of the Constitutional Court's decision that "if the corporation's agent, employee or other worker commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article 86 of the former Road Act (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, or 70

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2)