The defendant shall be innocent.

1. A’s summary of the facts charged is the driver of the freight vehicle B, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle, and A’s employee violated the restriction on vehicle operation by loading more than six tons of the restriction on the above vehicle on the front of the wind metal in front of the Gangseo-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, on May 15, 1993.

2. As to the above facts charged, by applying Article 86 and subparagraph 1 of Article 84 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) to the above facts charged, a summary order of KRW 200,00 was issued to the Defendant by the Seoul District Criminal Court on December 31, 1993, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time, but the Defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on January 11, 2013 on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision.

On December 29, 201, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court's decision (201Hun-Ga24) made on December 29, 201 that the above provision of the Act retroactively lost 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.