logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.06.04 2012고단2895
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The part of the defendant in the separate criminal facts in the indictment of this case (retailing the suspect as the defendant) is the same as the defendant.

2. On the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor charged a public action by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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), but the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act with respect to the business of the corporation pursuant to Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 8976 of Jul. 30, 2009), the above part of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 866 of Mar. 21, 2008) was retroactively invalidated.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow