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

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is the owner and the user of B, and B is the owner and the user of B, and around October 14, 2003, around 10:08, the Defendant operated the cargo loaded with the cargo to move the total weight exceeding 44.685t at a military entity's place of business with a total weight exceeding 40 km from the direction of the Sindong Highway, thereby violating the road management authority's restriction on vehicle operation in relation to the Defendant's business.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the above charged facts, and it was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act applied to this case on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant provision shall also be imposed on the corporation” (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act. In addition, where the law or law provisions related to punishment retroactively become invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the case of the defendant who was not guilty as a crime by applying the relevant provision of the Act constitutes a crime under Article 86 of the former Road Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5397.