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

1. On February 3, 1994, around 17:55 on February 17, 1994, the summary of the facts charged charged by the Defendant’s employee A violated the Defendant’s restriction on the operation of the vehicle by operating B 11 ton of cargo trucks while loaded more than 10 ton of the cargo at the entrance of the train for the interesting 1-dong at a permanent residence.

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 part of Article 86 of the above Act that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 84 subparagraph 1 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article." The Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201 was retroactively invalidated.

3. According to the 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 5