beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of trucking transport business, etc., and the Defendant’s employees B are the Defendant’s business.
A. On June 6, 2003, if the transmission of fruit trees to North Korea at port was conducted on June 6, 2003: (a) around 05:26, in excess of 10.36 tons in front of the container inspection station located on the 7th line of the Jinri National Highway, and in excess of 10.36 tons in the 2nd axis; (b) 11.47 tons in the 3nd axis, 10.96 tons in the 4th stable; and (c) the gross weight of 42.32 tons in total; and
(b) The same year;
7. On 19:01:54, on the front side of the Gangseo-gu Police University, the height of which exceeds 4.30 meters at a height exceeding 4.30 meters from the front side of the Dong-dong Police Office located in the name of the Dong-dong Police University, and operated the said truck to commit an offense.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 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; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in the instant case, and applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1), and the summary order subject to review was issued and confirmed as they are.
However, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling on October 28, 2010 that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the portion of the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the instant case, pursuant to the en banc Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger)."
On the other hand, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively effective due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the pertinent provision shall be deemed to constitute a crime.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9037 delivered on April 15, 2005, etc.).