The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On May 26, 2003, around 10:56, A, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of restrictions on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by operating the said vehicle in excess of the size of restriction and total weight of the B vehicle in relation to the Defendant’s work on the road prior to the place of business of the construction of the highway in South and North Sea.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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) to the facts charged of this case, and filed a public prosecution, and issued a summary order subject to retrial by recognizing that the court was guilty.

In this regard, after the summary order subject to review becomes final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court shall, in case where an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the juristic person, be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The part” was decided to be in violation of the Constitution (Hun-Ga 38, Oct. 28, 2010, Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga 38, Oct. 28, 2010). Accordingly, the above legal provision, which is a penal provision for the facts charged in this case, was retroactively invalidated.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case against the defendant constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of the judgment of the defendant under the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure