beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. On February 4, 1998, the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management agency by loading and operating B truck owned by the Defendant in excess of 10.2 tons of gross weight exceeding 4.1 ton of gross weight exceeding 36.5 tons in the third axiss, in a fixed inspection room located in the window of the vice line of the Gyeong-gun, the Gyeong-gun, the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Gyeong-gun, the Gyeong-gun, the Defendant’s employee, in relation to the Defendant’s business.
B. (1) On June 29, 199, at the petition office of the Seoul direction highway 132 km, the Defendant’s employee C, in relation to the Defendant’s business, loaded and operated a D 18 tons truck owned by the Defendant in excess of 10 tons from the limited axis, thereby violating the restriction on the operation of the road by the road management agency. (2) The Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road by carrying and operating the D 18 tons truck with freight exceeding 10 tons from the limited axis.
7. 1. 11:32, at the 119k Busan Busan Metropolitan City Eup office, C, an employee of the Defendant, has violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles of the road management agency by loading and operating the D 18 tons of truck owned by the Defendant in excess of 10 tons of the restricted axis, in excess of 11.2 tons of the restricted axis.
2. Under Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Oct. 28, 2010; 2010Hun-Ga14, Oct. 14, 15, 2010; 2010Hun-Ga21, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the portion of the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, it is in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act