The defendant shall be innocent.

1. A summary of the facts charged [2014 Highest 1010] The Defendant is a corporation for trucking transport business. A, an employee of the Defendant, driving a 30-metric weight B with respect to the Defendant’s business, thereby violating the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority, by operating the 25.26 tons of total weight exceeding 20 tons of total weight of 20 tons at the 2nd Ga in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, at around December 23, 1999.

[2014 Highest 1016] The Defendant is a corporation that aims at trucking transport business. Around 05:20 on April 24, 2001, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by a road management authority by driving D trucks with respect to the Defendant’s business, and operating the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 13 tons of the 40 tons of the 13 tons of the 40 tons of the 1110 tons of the total weight of the 13 tons of the 13 tons of the above 40 tons of the 13 tons of the 13 tons of the 13 tons of the 5 tons of the above vehicle.

2. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on October 28, 2010 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, a fine under Article 83 (1) 2 shall also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution." Accordingly, Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) applied by the prosecutor to each of the above facts charged by the public prosecutor, the Supreme Court ruled that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in accordance with the provision of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, the portion of the above provision of the Act shall be retroactively null and void pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act."

Thus, since each of the above facts charged is not a crime, it is judged not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.