logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2013.05.23 2013고단78
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On February 4, 1997, at around 19:19 on February 4, 1997, the Defendant, the owner of a truck A, who is his employee B, violated the restriction on operation by carrying a cargo of 11.4 tons and operating the vehicle on the third axis in excess of 10 tons of a stable weight on the road at a point of 159 km at the upstream of the Honam Highway.

2. The judgment prosecutor, applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005), where a fine of 300,000 won was finalized by a summary order No. 97 high-ranking86 of Jun. 3, 1997, but Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the portion of a fine under Article 83(1) shall be imposed on the corporation shall be retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court Order No. 2010Hun-Ga38 of Oct. 28, 2010.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow