The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged of this case B is C19 tons of car trucks driver, and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of road transport business, etc.

1. B, around 11:10 on July 8, 2004, operated the above truck at an elevated level on sand located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Westerndong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, in excess of 20 tons of the above restricted road, and operated the above truck at an aggregate of 35 tons, thereby violating the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority;

2. The Defendant violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by allowing the Defendant’s employees to operate the Defendant’s business in accordance with paragraph (1) at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor was prosecuted by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), and the summary order of KRW 700,000 was notified and finalized in this court.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 86 of the above Act 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 corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) of the Constitutional Court Act). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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