The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On December 6, 2002, around 15:53, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by loading and operating cargo exceeding the gross weight of the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business in the modern era of the business establishment of the central line of 7.4 km away from the central line of 7.4 km.

B. On December 12, 2002, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the Road Management Agency by loading and operating cargo exceeding the gross weight of the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant in excess of the total weight of the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business, in the modern era of the 7.4km branch line of the central line 7.4km.

(c)

On December 18, 2002, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by loading and operating cargo in excess of the restriction on the size and total weight of the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s work in the modern era of the large-scale store 7.4km of the central line 7.4km of the central line, around 2002.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment shall also be punished by a fine under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to each of the facts charged of this case where the agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation.

A public prosecution was instituted by applying the part " "."

In this regard, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 with respect to the above provision of the law (Supreme Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010) and thus, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

If so, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.