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

1. On March 20, 1994, A, who is an employee of the defendant, escaped with a limited weight of 10 tons in the control of the cargo vehicle of 10 tons in the area of the mountain field, the area of the mountain field, the area of the mountain field, the area of the mountain and the area of the mountain field, the area of the mountain and the area of the mountain.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter “former Road Act”) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to reexamination was notified to the defendant and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article" in Article 86 of the former Road Act (the Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga18, Oct. 25, 2012) that "if the corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 2 of the same Act, the pertinent provision of the same Act, which is applicable

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2)