The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 15:00 on July 16, 2005, B, an employee of the defendant, operated the above truck while loaded with construction wastes of more than 12.85 tons, exceeding 10 tons out of the limited reduction of C truck on the road that runs from the offside surface of the fire protection zone of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the outer evabbbbdo-dong, Nam-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and thus violated the road management authority's restriction on vehicle operation with respect to the defendant's duties.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the summary order of KRW 300,000 was notified and finalized in this court.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the above Act, violates the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged). Accordingly, the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, the applicable provisions of which contain an employee's offense, retroactively lose its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.