The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of a DNA scraper vehicle.

On March 9, 2006, E, an employee of the defendant, operated the above vehicle in the condition that it is loaded with 10.9 tons of 40 tons of 71.05 tons of gross weight, 20.6 tons of 20.6 tons of gross weight, 21.8 tons of 4 livestock, 10.2 tons of 4 livestock, 10.9 tons of 5 livestock, and 10.9 tons of 5 livestock, at the time of the stay of the border border road, in front of the moving site of the 25-ray of the national highway, and in excess of 10 tons of the limitation 10.9 tons of gross weight.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005, and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to reexamination and confirmed.

However, on July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision of the Road Act" (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 Decided July 30, 2009), which applies to this case, the above provision of the Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.