The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of a A truck, and the Defendant’s employee B violated the restriction on operation by loading and operating the 11.8 tons on the 2nd axis in excess of 10 tons of a stable weight at the mid-top expressway business place on September 13, 1995 at around 19:42, and 11.8 tons on the 3rd axis.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 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, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 50,00 to the defendant as of January 95, 1996 and the summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant at that time, but the defendant filed a request for review of the summary order on the ground that the above legal provision became final and conclusive as unconstitutional.

However, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker 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." As such, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on October 28, 2010 that Article 2010Hun-Ga38 of the Act violated the Constitution, 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.