The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a corporation with the purpose of transportation business, etc.

On May 21, 1994, the Defendant’s employee B, with respect to the Defendant’s work, violated the restriction on the operation of the road management agency’s vehicle by driving the freight vehicle, which is owned by the Defendant and owned in excess of 2 tons in the second axis and 2 tons in excess of 10 tons in the base of restriction on operation, in excess of 10 tons in front of the road-based external inspection station in front of the main line of the main line of the parallel of the parallel of the head of the Dong-dong-dong and the head of the Dong-dong-dong.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review and confirmed.

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 on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court has issued the above summary order, and on December 29, 2011, Article 86 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the part is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.