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

1. At around November 29, 1993, B, an employee of the Defendant, operated the said vehicle in an excessive state of 11.4 tons of a 2 livestock weight, 3 livestock weight, 11.8 tons of a 3 livestock weight, in violation of the restriction on vehicle operation in front of the two lines of the national highways located in the 2nd line of the Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam National Road located in the Gyeongnam National Road.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation as above in relation to the Defendant’s business.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 84(1) and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts and prosecuted the prosecution.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision (the Constitutional Court Order 2011HunGa24, Constitutional Court Order) that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article." Accordingly, Article 86 of the former Road Act (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24, Constitutional Court Order 2011HunGa24, Constitutional Court Order 20

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.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case did not constitute a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is publicly announced under the main sentence of Article 440 of