The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 16:52 on June 7, 2004, B, an employee of the Defendant, loaded a landscaping seat on C treatment 25 tons truck at a c treatment25 tons metric truck at the head office located in the head office of the road construction impulse located at a point of 251 kilometers in the middle inland highway 338-3, 338-3, the central office, which was a 35 tons of the Defendant’s work, with respect to the Defendant’s work, and had an excessive operation exceeding 1.35 tons of 10 tons, the base of which was 4 tons of loading restrictions.

2. The prosecutor brought a public action against the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 86 and 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; hereinafter “former Road Act”). However, the part that “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act due to the decision of the Constitutional Court on Oct. 28, 2010, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 1014, Oct. 14, 2010; 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 of the same Act, the portion that “if the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the same Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article” becomes retroactively null and void.

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