The defendant is innocent.

1. On January 13, 2006, the summary of the facts charged, B, an employee of the Defendant, was driving C vehicles with respect to the business on January 13, 2006 at around 13:36, and driving them on the second 10 tons of weight exceeding 11.05 tons of the limitation to the above vehicles while driving them on the second 10 tons of weight. The Defendant neglected to guide and supervise the Defendant to prevent such violation.

2. The public prosecution of this case against the defendant is governed by Articles 86 (Joint Penal Provisions), 83 (1) 2 and 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008).

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or any other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant provision shall be imposed on the corporation."

According to this decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated.

In a case where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively effective due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision constitutes a case where the defendant's case is not committed.

3. Conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime.

In accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant shall be acquitted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.