The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: A is a road that restricts the operation of more than 10 tons, total weight of 40 tons, length of 17.7 meters, and height of 4.0 meters at a 2.95 meters wide and more than 0.45 meters higher than that of the Road Management Agency in order to load a bridge stay at around 20:05 on Nov. 5, 199 and to prevent the danger of road structure and operation at the former three-dimensional inspection station with the line of No. 29 on the national highway 29 on the road; and the Defendant violated the restriction on operation of the road management agency's vehicle by operating the same 2.95 meters wide and more than that of the control standards. In relation to his duties, the Defendant, as an employee, committed such a violation.

2. In Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), which applies to a summary order subject to review, the phrase “where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation 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,” which is retroactively invalidated by a decision that violates the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010).

3. As the facts charged in the instant case constitute a crime, the Defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it falls under the case not committed.