The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of B dump truck, and the employee of the defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by loading and operating sand in excess of 0.9 tons and 1.12 tons of the 4 dump truck on February 14, 1994, if he was engaged in the operation of the dump truck with respect to the defendant's duties in the operation of the dump truck on February 13:30, 1994.

2. The public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution against the facts charged of this case by applying Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 84 (1) with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article." Accordingly, the defendant was notified of a summary order subject to reexamination and the above summary order against the defendant

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.