The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the driver of B truck to which the Defendant belongs, and around 11:26 on February 17, 2006, around 11:26: (a) on the 77th line of the National Road, the driver loaded cabs on the instant truck; and (b) on the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the vehicle at the vehicle inspection station located in the west-gun of the west-gun of the National Road, along with the line No. 77 of the National Road, in order to preserve the road’s structure and prevent the risks of operation; (c) notwithstanding the fact that the 10 tons of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the stiff of the vehicle, violated regulations.

The Defendant, an employee, committed the above-mentioned violation in relation to his duties.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008, hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court on July 30, 2009, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating the provisions of Article 83 (1) 2 in Article 86 of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The Constitutional Court 2008 Constitutional Court 17 Hun-Ga decided that the part is in violation of the Constitution.”

Therefore, according to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law, which is applicable to the facts charged, was retroactively invalidated.

3. As the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime, the Defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it falls under the case not committed.