The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 15:34 August 25, 1994, A, an employee of the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority, since A, as an employee of the Defendant, was operated while loaded with freight of 11.2 tons at the third axis of the above cargo vehicle, in violation of the restriction on the 15.3km of B cargo vehicles owned by the Defendant at a point 15.3km on the 15.3km km of the New Highway

2. The prosecutor charged the above charged facts by applying 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 indictment.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating the provisions of Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the portion of the Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if the agent, employee or other worker of the corporation commits an act of violating the provisions of Article 84 (2) of the same Act, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions shall also be punished by the Constitution." In accordance with the proviso of Article 47

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.