The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On June 22, 2001, around 12:55, the summary of the facts charged, B, an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the Defendant’s vehicle in a state of 1.2 tons of feed loaded with feed of 11.2 tons in the fifth livestock, in the direction of Gwangju Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, in front of the 48km point of Seosan-gu, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

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) to the above charged facts.

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, the corporation shall also be fined under Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act" (the Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44,70 (merged) of the same Act) is in violation of the Constitution. Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.