The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a corporation established for trucking transport business, etc., and an employee A, with respect to his duties, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority on October 11, 2006, when he was unable to operate the said road in excess of 10 tons of the 12.13 kilometers in the direction of the 2nd Highway at around 17:06, when he was at around 17:06, when he was an employee A, the said road cannot be operated in excess of 10 tons of the 4th load.

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). Article 86 of the above Act provides that "where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the pertinent Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is a violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, Jul. 30, 2009). According to the above decision of unconstitutionality, the provisions of the above Act, which are applicable provisions of the above facts charged, retroactively lose its effect.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.