The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 15, 1994, at around 01:15, the Defendant’s employee A violated the vehicle operation restriction by a road management authority in excess of 10.6 tons per reduction, by loading and operating freight of 11.9 tons on the second axis of B freight vehicles owned by the Defendant on the front of the 306 km point of the parallel line on the Southern Sea Highway.

2. On the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter “former Road Act”) to the facts charged in this case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under 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 corresponding Article" in Article 86 of the former Road Act shall also be punished by the Constitution (Supreme Court Order 2013Hun-Ga25 Decided November 28, 2013) that the pertinent provision of the Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts charged, retroactively lost 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.