The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged C is a DNA driver, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle.

C On June 29, 1994, around 11:04, around 2004, the area was a restricted area in which it is impossible to load and operate more than 10 tons per stable at a location 20.4 km in Seoul Office of the Horse Highway (Seoul), but the nuclear 2 axis was operated more than 1.9 tons at the lower end of 1.9 tons, and the Defendant, an employee of C, caused C to commit a violation in connection with the Defendant’s duties.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 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 above facts charged, and the defendant was charged with a summary order subject to retrial, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and confirmed.

If an agent, employee, or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the juristic person, after the above summary order has been issued, Article 86 of the above Act shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga decided December 29, 2011, retroactively invalidated its effect.

3. In conclusion, 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, but the defendant did not obtain the consent of the defendant, and thus,