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

1. Around May 28, 1995, at a point of 38.5 km along the Young-dong Highway, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority by operating the vehicle as loaded with freight of 11.3t on the fourth 4 lines in excess of 10t of the restriction on the load weight of the vehicle owned by the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s business.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the summary order against which the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 500,000 was notified and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." The part of the above Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if the corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44,70

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the defendant is publicly notified under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided