The defendant is innocent.

1. On March 15, 2004, the summary of the facts charged charged by the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority by operating more than the stable weight of B truck owned by the Defendant (in excess of 11.2 tons and 11.2 tons, respectively) on the front side of the 35.6km of the Southern Sea Highway, which is an employee of the Defendant, in connection with the Defendant’s business.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act with respect to the business of the corporation, the provision that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under Article 86 of the same Act shall also be punished by the Constitution."

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.