The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is about A’s duties, who is his employee,

A. A. On July 12, 1999, around 10:31, 199, the road management authority violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by carrying freight exceeding 4.2m of the height of the restriction on the loading of the lag of the lag in front of the lag of the front of the lag of the lag, on board the la

B. At around 13:35 on July 27, 1999, around 13:35, the road management authority violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the vehicle by operating the vehicle while the vehicle is loaded with the cargo exceeding 2.5m of 3.10m in excess of the height of the restriction on the loading of the cargo in front of the upper half of the Matern-gun of Gyeonggi-do.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment was amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995 as to the facts charged of this case, and was amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005.

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 2014) provides that “When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation” in Article 86 of the same Act shall be imposed on the corporation, which is in violation of the Constitution (Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the same Act). Accordingly, since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation, the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 444, and 70 (Joint) of the same Act), the part of the Act applicable to the facts charged in this case shall not be finalized.