beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant’s summary of the facts charged in this case
A. On March 8, 2006, around 06:37, at the control office of vehicle traffic restrictions (influence) on the road of No. 7 U.S. national highways of Jung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Defendant’s employees violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management office by loading and operating cargo exceeding the limit-scale weight, total weight, width, and length of cargo vehicles owned by the Defendant with respect to the Defendant’s business;
B. On June 5, 2006, around 03:40, the Defendant’s employees violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicles of the Road Management Agency by loading and operating cargo in excess of the limit-scale weight, total weight, width and length of the freight vehicle owned by the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s business at the control office of vehicle traffic restriction (influence) on the 2nd line 2nd line national highways of Mineyang-do, Gwangju-do, Gwangju-do, Mayang-do.
C. On September 7, 2006, around 21:49, the captain of the city in Busan-gun, Busan-gun National Highway 14 lines traffic restrictions (influences), the Defendant’s employees violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by loaded freight exceeding the limit of the freight vehicles owned by the Defendant and the total weight.
(d)
On January 5, 2007, 21:33 around 21:3, 2007, the vehicle operation restrictions of the road management agency by loading and operating freight in excess of the limit of the freight vehicles owned by the defendant in relation to the defendant's business at the inspection station of traffic control on the road 24-line mobile operation (influence).
2. Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005 and wholly amended by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) which applies to the facts charged in this case by the prosecutor in the decision 17, July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court held that the agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation is the provision of Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation.