The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On December 7, 1996, the Defendant’s employees violated the restrictions on the operation of loading more than 17:12 of the charges.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the facts charged.

Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense 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." (The Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (Joint) Decided October 28, 2010) of the same Act provides that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment of innocence is announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It