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 C Driving D Freight and C’s user. C, around September 19, 2007, loaded 13.00 tons at the 2nd to 3 tons, loaded at the 2nd to 3 tons, and operated at the 2nd to 3.00 tons at the 2nd to 273 kilometers at the coastline, and the gross weight of 45.29 tons exceeds 5.29 tons, thereby violating the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation in relation to the Defendant’s business.

2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged in this case by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) to the provisions of Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the same Act. The Constitutional Court, in Article 86 of the same Act, "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is the decision of unconstitutionality that it is against the Constitution (amended by Act No. 2008Hun-Ga17 of Jul. 30, 2009). Accordingly, the provision of the same Act, which is the applicable provisions of the above facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.

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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.