The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., and around February 22:14, 1996, the employee B violated the provision on the restriction on the vehicle operation of the Defendant’s business by loading and operating the freight of more than 10 tons of the restricted c truck on the front of the c truck on the road of the c truck on the c truck.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied 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; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in Article 86 of the former Road Act that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 with respect to the corporation's business, the portion that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits an offense under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provision shall also be punished by the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010, etc.). Thus, the aforementioned provision of the Act retroactively

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