The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of a freight truck A.

At around 18:00 on October 15, 1992, B, an employee of the defendant, operated the vehicle in a state loaded with the cargo of 16 tons and 17.2 tons on the 3 livestocks, in excess of 10 tons on the roads of Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-gun, Haak-do, and Haak-do.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the pertinent Article" (the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201) is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 dated 201). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.