The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On July 18, 1996, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant’s employee operated the said vehicle in excess of the limit of C Truck with respect to the Defendant’s business and violated the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority.

2. The facts charged in this case fall under Article 86 and Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005). In the case where an employee, etc. of a juristic person in Article 86 of the above Act committed a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 of the above Act, the Constitutional Court determined that the above part is unconstitutional as to the provision that a fine is imposed on the juristic person, the above part is retroactively invalidated under Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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