logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.09.11 2020고단4446
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. As shown in the separate sheet of facts charged

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) of the former Road Act, and the summary order was notified and finalized by 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, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow