The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On February 26, 2004, around 06:34, 200, the Defendant, his employee, operated a C truck with a 11.61 ton of freight exceeding 10 ton of 11.61 ton of c truck, and violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.

2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts 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. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008).

However, in Article 86 of the Road Act, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of an individual commits an offense provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the duties of the individual, the individual shall be punished by a fine provided for in the corresponding Article in the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga23, 24, 36, 39, 47, 50 (merged) on October 28, 201) that "if the individual commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the duties of the individual, the portion of the pertinent provision, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to

3. If so, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.