The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and the Defendant’s employee B, at around 13:33 June 29, 200, operated the cargo loaded in a state exceeding 1.4 tons in excess of 1.4 tons, even though he could not operate more than 10 tons of a stable at a new trucking business office for the Gyeong Highway at around 13:33 on June 29, 200.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the above facts charged, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 50,00 to the defendant as of Sep. 28, 200 and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant at that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the said summary order on the ground that the above provisions were unconstitutional.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above provision of the law shall be unconstitutional. In accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law shall retroactively lose its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty on the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act