beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.23 2017고단1445

도로법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is the owner of a vehicle A, and B is the employee of the defendant.

B On November 5, 1992, 15:22 around Hanam National Highway located in Hanam-si, in excess of 10 tons per each axis under the restriction criteria, B violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle with the cargo loaded in the 2 axis of the said vehicle in excess of 12 tons per each axis under the restriction criteria.

Accordingly, B, a defendant's employee, committed the above violation in relation to the defendant's work.

Summary of Evidence

1. A summary order of the Seoul Southern District Court 93 High Court 8513

1. Application of statutes governing certified copies of corporate registers;

1. The Defendant’s convictions under Articles 86, 84, and 54 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 1993), as to the facts constituting an offense, filed a petition for reexamination on the ground that the former Act, which was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality, was applied to the summary order subject to reexamination (Seoul Southern District Court Order No. 93 High Court Order No. 8513 of April 16, 1993), and the decision of commencing reexamination became final and conclusive.

However, since the date and time when B, an employee of the defendant, violated the restriction on operation, around 15:2 on November 5, 1992, Article 8 of the Criminal Act, which applies in the summary order subject to review, is Articles 86, 84, and 54 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 1993), which is a corporation at the time of the act pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8 of the Criminal Act, Articles 1(1) of the same Act, and Article 86, 84, and 54 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of January 5, 1993). Since the decision on commencement of review was not made by the Constitutional Court, the decision on October 25, 2012, which was improper by the defendant, was amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 193; when the employee of the corporation was an employee of the corporation under Article 28(4) of the former Road Act.