The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of B truck B and the user of A. On January 27, 2005, at around 11:04, the Defendant violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority with respect to the Defendant’s business by loading and operating the gross weight of 44.5 tons of the above vehicle, even though it was impossible to operate more than 40 tons at the center length of 51.9 kilometers in front of the business office of Kimpo-si, Seoul, the 196-1 located in the upper village of the 11:04 Gampo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the above charged facts, and it was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act applied to this case on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant provision shall also be imposed on the corporation” (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010HunGa38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act. In addition, if the Act or the Act retroactively becomes invalid due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was not prosecuted for a crime subject to the relevant provision of the Act constitutes a crime subject to the said Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3859, Apr. 15, 2005).