beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged [2014 Highest 282] The defendant is a legal entity that is engaged in trucking transport business, and an employee A is driving B truck in connection with the defendant's business;
A. On May 17, 2006, around 11:21, the road management authority violated the vehicle operation restriction by operating the vehicle after loading more than 1.090 tons of freight (building material) in the shape of a stable weight of more than 1.090 tons in excess of 1.090 tons of the above vehicle at the top of the main direction of the metropolitan metropolitan cycle highway, the intersection direction, Kimpo, Kimpo, the main place of business of the vehicle outside Seoul;
B. Around 03:43 on June 4, 2006, the Plaintiff violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the vehicle after loading more than 10 tons of the 10 tons of the 11.18 tons of the 10 tons of the 11.18 tons of the 10 tons of the 11.18 tons of the 11.18 tons of the 100 tons of the 100
[2014 Highest 286] The Defendant is a corporation for trucking transport business. Around May 10, 2007, the Defendant, an employee of C, driving a D 25 tons truck with respect to the Defendant’s business, and violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by operating it after loading more than 40 tons of gross weight of 44.14 tons at the bamboo business place located at the midline 307 km Line on May 10, 2007.
2. The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 86 of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008) which applies to each of the above facts charged by the public prosecutor, "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 of the Act." The part of the above legal provision is retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, each of the above facts charged constitutes a crime not committed.