The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 16:30 on September 23, 1997, when the defendant, an employee of the defendant, operated the B truck with respect to the defendant's business, the defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by operating the line exceeding 2.98 meters wide, 2.5 meters in length, and 19 meters in order to preserve the road's structure and prevent traffic danger.

2. As to Article 86 and Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which is the applicable provisions to the facts charged in the instant case, the Constitutional Court shall, where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in Article 86 of the former Road Act, impose a fine under the relevant Article on the corporation, which is also a violation of the Constitution (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) of the same Act). Thus, the above provision of the Road Act has retroactively lost its effect.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.