beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.05.27 2020고단1363

도로법위반

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On December 28, 1994, the driver belonging to the defendant violated the restriction on the operation of over-loading at around 16:04 on the summary of the charges.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Articles 86, 84 subparag. 1 and 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 facts charged.

However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 86 of the former Road Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article," the part of the same shall be punished by the Constitution (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ga24, Dec. 29, 201); thereby, the above provision of the Act becomes retroactively null and void.

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