The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 23, 2005, A, who is an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating B freight vehicles in excess of 10 tons of 11.23 tons at the front of the river hills of the river hills of the East Sea Highway Corporation, in excess of 16:04 tons of the limitation on vehicle operation.

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, 215, 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.”

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.