The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On November 1, 200, at around 13:35, 200, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, operated the freight of 11.5 tons on the 2 axis in excess of 10.4 tons, 3, and 11.5 tons of the 10-5 tons of the 16:23 on the same day, at the upstream line business office located at a point 155 km from the 16:23mn of the Honam Highway, 10.9 tons of the 2 axis, 10.4 tons of the 3 stable, and 11.56 tons of the 4 stable, while driving the freight of 10.5 tons of the 15m load on the 2 axis, and thereby violating the restriction on the operation of the road management agency, respectively.

2. However, if an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 4920 of December 30, 2005), which is a legal provision applicable to the facts charged in this case, of the facts charged in this case, the said juristic person shall also be punished by a fine under the said Article.

“The portion “” was retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality [the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Consolidation) of October 28, 2010].

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by publicly announcing the summary of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act.