The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around 02:15 on August 2, 2004, the Defendant’s employee, driving of C truck, and the Defendant’s employee violated the Defendant’s vehicle operation restriction on the Defendant’s business by driving more than 40 tons of the gross weight of 45.4 tons on the side of the vehicle, despite the restriction on the operation of a vehicle exceeding 40 tons in total, in order to preserve the structure of the road and prevent the risks of traffic.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the above facts charged and the summary order against the defendant became final and conclusive.

After that, the Constitutional Court made 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, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act."

[Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merged) decided October 28, 2010] Accordingly, the provisions of the former Road Act, which are applicable provisions to the above facts charged, retroactively lost its effect.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 32