The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is B driver, and the defendant is the owner of the above vehicle, and the vehicle operating a road prior to a branch office 145.5 kilometers on the Western Highway is not operated in excess of 10 tons and gross weight 40 tons in accordance with Article 54 of the Road Act and Article 28-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in order to preserve the structure of the road and prevent the danger of traffic. However, A was operated in excess of 11.8 tons while driving the above road at around November 30, 200 and around 13:36 of 202. The defendant violated the restriction on operation.

2. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)). Accordingly, the above Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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