The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant had an employee A drive B truck with respect to his duties, and around 23:37 August 28, 2003, A violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the said motor vehicle at the Korea Highway Corporation located at a point of 10 km away from his/her military self-employed business office to 11.38t exceeding 10 km out of the limitation axis.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) 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) with respect to the facts charged in the instant case to file a summary order, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to retrial and confirmed.

However, the Constitutional Court decided October 28, 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, and 70 (merger) 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, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under corresponding Article 83 (1) 2" in Article 86 of the former Road Act is in violation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the above provision of the law is retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.