The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 5, 2006, around 15:18, A, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of a road management authority’s restriction on the operation of a vehicle by operating the vehicle in a condition that the Defendant is loaded with freight exceeding 12.4 tons, exceeding 12.4 tons of a limited weight on the second axis of B freight in relation to the Defendant’s duties.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution for the above charged facts by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts.

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17) that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act in violation of Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine shall also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution" (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17) in Article 86 of the former Road Act, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.