logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2013.04.30 2013고단164
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of A truck, and the employee of the defendant is operating the above truck with respect to the defendant's business, and the defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the vehicle in the state of oil exceeding 1.37 tons, which is limited to the 10 tons of the above cargo vehicle, at the Daejeon- through through through through through through through through through through through through through through through through through throughout the highway, which is located in the territory of Yong-gu, Yong-gu, Gyeongnam-si on December 24, 2007.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.) to the facts charged in this case, and the summary order against the defendant was finalized after being notified of the summary order subject to reexamination.

However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on July 30, 2009 with respect to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17 Decided July 30, 2009). Accordingly, the above legal provision was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

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