The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in transportation business as the owner of an I truck. On November 4, 200, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by loading more than 4.70 meters high height of 4 meters at 0.70 meters, in violation of the restriction on the height of the Defendant’s duties while driving the I truck on the GJ, which is an employee of the Defendant, for the 12:22 on November 4, 200, while operating the 37th line road on the GJ, which is the J, a Gyeonggi National Road 37 line

2. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in transportation business as the owner of K truck. On November 22, 2004, at around 14:07, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of a vehicle by loading freight of 1.7 tons on the 2 axis 11.7 tons and 12.65 tons and loading and operating the restricted weight exceeding 10 tons by operating the 38 line road on the 38 line located in Pyeongtaek-si Roon-do, Pyeongtaek-si, and L, an employee of the Defendant, with respect to the Defendant’s business, while operating the above truck.

As to each of the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor charged a public action by applying 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; hereinafter the same), and each of the above summary orders issued by the defendant was notified and finalized.

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 relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)). Accordingly, the above Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where it does not constitute a crime.