The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of B vehicle and C’s user, and C, around 18:35 on March 8, 2006, at the leisure place located at a distance of 10 tons exceeding 10 tons of a stable weight of 10 tons on the second axis of the said vehicle at around 18:35 on March 8, 2006, violated the road management authority’s restriction on vehicle operation.

2. The prosecutor charged the facts charged in this case by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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) to the provisions of Article 86 and Article 83(1)2 of the same Act. The Constitutional Court, in Article 86 of the same Act, "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation," which is the decision of unconstitutionality that it is against the Constitution (amended by Act No. 2008Hun-Ga17 of Jul. 30, 2009). Accordingly, the provision of the same Act, which is the applicable provisions of the above facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.

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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 Decided April 15, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 91Do2825 Decided May 8, 1992). Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.