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

1. The summary of the facts charged is that at around 22:31 on March 10, 1994, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, requested a measurement to verify whether the restriction on the operation of the said cargo vehicle while operating the B truck while operating the said truck in the state of being loaded with the cryp in the crypology located in the crypology located in the crypology located in the frontnam-gun of the Defendant, but the Defendant failed to comply with the demand without justifiable grounds. On March 16, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the said truck by failing to comply with the demand of the road management authority to check whether the restriction on the operation of the said cargo vehicle while operating the same truck while operating the cryp in the state of being loaded with the cryp in the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the Seonam-gun,

2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts by applying Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 2 and Article 54 (2) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995).

However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 83 (1) 3 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article," the Constitutional Court Order 2012Hun-Ga18 dated October 25, 2012, retroactively lost its effect.

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 in this case is publicly announced under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2) of the Criminal