logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2012.12.27 2012고단6460
도로법위반
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Around March 2, 1999, at least 15:38, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, violated the vehicle operation restriction by the road management authority by loading and operating freight of 50.24t on the said vehicle in excess of 10t of the total weight of the restriction on operation of B vehicle in front of the said vehicle in excess of 13.15t, 5 12.81t, and 40t of the said vehicle in excess of the total weight of the restriction on operation of the said vehicle.

2. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the above charged facts by 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) to the above charged facts.

On June 11, 1999, the court issued a summary order of KRW 700,00 to the defendant as a fine for negligence No. 13235, Jun. 11, 199, and the above summary order became final and conclusive after being notified to the defendant at that time, but the defendant filed a petition for review of the above summary order on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision.

On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article," in Article 86 of the above Act, that the provision of the above Act has retroactively lost its effect in accordance with the decision of unconstitutionality.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment in this case is publicly announced under Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58(2) of the Criminal

arrow