logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2015.07.07 2015고단179
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On June 4, 2003, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by carrying freight exceeding the load load from the control place of vehicles violating the restriction on the operation of the national highways 7 line in the Jinjin-ri, if the Defendant, who is his employee, sent the vehicle to North-gu at port on June 17:21, 2003.

2. As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution by applying Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 83 (1) 2 in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article," and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, after a summary order subject to review becomes final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the above part violates the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga353470, Oct. 28, 2010) (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga1415273538470, Oct. 28, 2010). The above part was retroactively invalidated pursuant to Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow