The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 04:09 on Nov. 15, 2002, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the road management authority in relation to the business of the said company by allowing the driver B to drive the said truck, while driving the C Freight Truck owned by the Defendant along the secondary Highway. A vehicle with at least 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 11.16 tons of the 11.16 tons of the load while driving the said truck on the front of the said expressway’s main office of business.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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) to the part that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding Article." As to this, the defendant was issued a summary order on Feb. 20, 2003 on Jan. 24, 2003, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) Decided October 28, 2010), and the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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