logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.08.07 2018고단302
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, who is a corporation for the purpose of mid-term leasing business, etc., committed a violation of the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by carrying freight of 11.1 tons and 10.9 tons at the third axis, in excess of 10 tons of the restricted dump truck at the dump truck's place of business on December 3, 1993 at the dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump truck.

2. The judgment prosecutor's punishment of a fine of KRW 300,00 was finalized by filing a public prosecution in accordance with Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 193; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995); however, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the said Act in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined under the said Article.

“The portion of the Constitutional Court Decision 2011 Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga, dated December 29, 2011, retroactively lost its effect due to the 24th decision of unconstitutionality.

Therefore, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow