The defendant shall be innocent.

1. A’s summary of the facts charged is the driver of the truck B, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle. A, an employee of the defendant, loaded and operated the cargo in excess of 1.3 tons at a point of 423.5km (Seoul), around March 12, 1994, at a point of 423.5km (Seoul), around 14:30 on April 21, 1994, at a point of 385.2km on the Southern Sea Highway (Hand direction) in excess of 5.4 tons, thereby violating the restriction on the operation of each vehicle.

2. As to the above facts charged, by applying Article 86 and subparagraph 1 of Article 84 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995), a summary order of KRW 500,000 against the defendant was issued by the Seoul District Criminal Court as of Oct. 19, 1994, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on Oct. 24, 2012 on the ground that the above provisions were unconstitutional.

On December 29, 201, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." On the part of Article 86 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court's decision (201Hun-Ga24) made on December 29, 201 that the above provision of the Act retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.