The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is D vehicle driver, and the defendant is a corporation owned by the above vehicle, and E, the defendant's employee, operated the above vehicle on October 30, 1998 national highways No. 31 national highways located in Pyeongtaek-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and violated the restriction on vehicle operation by loading more than 11.5 tons of freight on the 2 axis of the above vehicle and operating it.

2. As to the above facts charged, 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; hereinafter the same), the Seoul District Court issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 to the Defendant on June 14, 200, and the above summary order was issued at around that time, but the Defendant filed a petition for review of the said summary order on February 8, 2013 on the ground that the above provisions of the Act became unconstitutional.

However, when an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, Article 86 of the above Act shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.With respect to the portion, the Constitutional Court decided on October 28, 2010 [14, 15, 21, 27, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged)] that the above provision of the law is against the Constitution, and the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated due to the decision of unconstitutionality.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.