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

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that "A person who is an employee of the defendant, was in violation of the road management authority's request for measurement by failing to comply with the request for measurement without any justifiable reason, even though he/she attempted to measure the violation of the Trackter's Tracker's Tracker's 17th line in the National Highway No. 17th of 2003, Oct. 24, 2003, when he/she operated the C Scker Tractor under the defendant's possession, which is the employee of the defendant."

With respect to the above charged facts, the prosecutor filed a public prosecution by applying Articles 86, 83(1)3 and 54(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).

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 83 (1) 3 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under Article 83 (1)."

[The Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga20, 21 (merged) decided December 29, 2011. Accordingly, the said legal provision retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47(2) of the former Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 12597, May 20, 2014).

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act