The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a juristic person established for the purpose of cargo transport business, etc., and the defendant's employee B violated the restrictions on the operation of the motor vehicle of the road management agency in relation to the defendant's business by operating the above cargo truck loaded with a truck with a gross weight of 58.65 tons, in excess of 10 tons of the restricted axis at the control station in the camping-do on November 13, 2004, at around 01:15, 16.95 tons of the restricted axis, 17.75 tons at the second axis, 17.75 tons at the third axis, and the gross weight of 58.65 tons, and thereby violating the restrictions on the operation of the motor vehicle of the road management agency in relation to the defendant's business.

2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged of this case by applying Article 86 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 Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall be imposed on the corporation also is imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution [the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 delivered on Oct. 28, 2010]. According to the above decision of unconstitutionality, Article 86 of the above Act, which applies to the facts charged, retroactively loses its effect.

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