beta
전주지방법원 2015.12.21 2015고단2057

도로법위반

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On August 22, 1994, at around 21:05, A, an employee of the Defendant, violated the Defendant’s duty restrictions on vehicle operation of the road management agency by carrying freight of more than 1.3 tons on the third axis of B truck in excess of 10 tons out of the limited axiss at the front of the branch of the Jung-do Seoul Metropolitan Office, Jung-do Highway.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 1 and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts and prosecuted the prosecution.

On December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article," in Article 86 of the former Road Act, is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201). Accordingly, the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.