beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged B is the driver of CM truck, and the defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of land trucking transport business.
B, around 18:42 on February 17, 1998, in order to preserve the structure of roads and prevent the danger of traffic in the door-to-door Office Regulation of Vehicles, which is located in the principle of door-to-door Ma of the National Road No. 3 on the 18:42, the State restricted the operation of vehicles with a gross weight exceeding 10 tons, and gross weight exceeding 40 tons, but the road manager violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by loading more than 1.6 tons of 1.6 tons, 3 tons, and 1.1 ton of 1.1 ton in the 2nd, as a result of the measurement of weight by the road manager, while he loaded the stone processing plant in the 2nd line with a stone processing plant located in the north-to-west Do at the permanent address.
The defendant is a corporation that employs B as a driver, and B has committed such a violation with respect to the business of the corporation.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the above charged facts, and the prosecution was instituted by applying Article 86, Article 83(1)2, and Article 54(1), and the summary order of KRW 300,000 was notified and finalized in this court.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 86 of the above Act that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation." (Article 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined) of the Constitutional Court Act). Accordingly, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated pursuant to the main sentence of Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the Criminal Procedure Act.