beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged [2014 Highest 3777 (No. 96 Highest 1352] A, a co-defendant, is a person engaged in freight driving business B 10 tons, and the defendant limited liability company and the defendant limited liability company are corporations established for the purpose of general trucking transport business.
1. A, Co-defendant A, at around 14:30 on April 3, 1996, shall carry 4.1 ton of the total weight of the above cargo while carrying wals wals at a point of 306 km in the South Sea Highway, having been carrying wals at a wals wals, and operating more than 4.1 ton of the above cargo vehicle, which is in progress from the high interest area to the Busan Sea;
2. As to the defendant's business, the defendant defendant A, who was a co-defendant, committed the same act as that of the above paragraph 1.
[2014 Highest 380 (16 Highest 884)] Co-defendant A is a 310 tons scar truck driver, and the defendant limited liability company is a corporation that owns the above vehicle.
1. On March 12, 1996, A, who was co-defendant A, loaded and operated wrusium in a 11.5 tons weight exceeding 10 tons of limited 10 tons on the roads of the Korea Highway Corporation located in Gwangju Metropolitan City, Gwangju Metropolitan City, in front of the foregoing vehicle at the Gwangju Metropolitan Office.
2. The defendant limited liability company's transportation is that the defendant Gap, who was co-defendant, committed the same act as that of the above paragraph 1.
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 each of the facts charged in the instant case, and applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1). The summary order subject to review was issued to the Defendant, and the summary order subject to review became final and conclusive around that time.
Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case on October 28, 2010, where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating the provisions of Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the Constitutional Court shall also impose a fine in that Article.