logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 거창지원 2013.10.30 2013고단259
도로법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 17:25 on January 25, 1994, the Defendant’s employee violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by allowing the road management authority to operate the vehicle exceeding the limit of 2:3 tons on the roads front of the Magdong-gun, Chang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun.

With respect to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying the provision of Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under subparagraph 1 of Article 84 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provision," and the defendant received a summary order and confirmed the above summary order against the defendant.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above legal provision (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 Decided December 29, 201). 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