The defendant shall be innocent.

On February 25, 1004, around 12:04, the Defendant’s employee A violated the vehicle traffic restrictions by loading and operating freight of 11.3 tons in excess of the said vehicle’s traffic restriction standards at the front of the said vehicle’s 166-2 establishment located in the Republic of Korea road located in the 166-2-dong Seoul Metropolitan Government branch of the construction project.

Judgment

The prosecutor applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act to the facts charged of this case, and the defendant was notified of a summary order subject to review and confirmed.

In this regard, when an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person commits an offense under Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) in Article 86 of the same Act after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court shall also impose a fine under the corresponding Article on the juristic person.

“The Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga decided that the part of the indictment is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga24). According to the above decision, the above legal provision, which is the legal provision applicable to the facts charged, was retroactively invalidated.

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant shall be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.