The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around May 18, 1994, at around 04:24:24, the Defendant, his employee, operated a C truck loaded with freight of 11.5 tons in the 2 axis in the state of being loaded with freight of 11.5 tons in the 10 tons of the 195 tons of the c truck, thereby violating the road management authority’s restrictions on vehicle operation.

2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993 and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the indictment.

However, the Constitutional Court, in Article 86 of the Road Act, rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," and thereby, rendered a decision that the part of Article 86 of the Road Act is unconstitutional (Supreme Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the aforementioned provision of the Act, which is a applicable provision of the

3. If so, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.