beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: A, an employee of the Defendant, is running the Defendant’s freight vehicle B in relation to the Defendant’s business; (1) around December 22, 1994; (2) around December 13:2, 1994; (3) more than 10 tons out of the limitation axiss on the roads of the Gannam Highway in front of the Gannamnam Highway; and (2) around February 15, 1995, around 13:00 on February 13:0, 1995, the road management authority violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the Defendant by operating the freight of more than 12.9 tons out of the limitation axis on the roads of the National Highway at Yancheon-si, Yancheon-si. 27.
2. Determination
A. As to Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) which is a joint penal provision among the applicable provisions of the facts charged in the instant case, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits a violation referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 84 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant Article” in the said provision of the Act shall be punished by the Constitution.
B. In addition, with respect to 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), which is a joint penal provision among the applicable provisions to the facts charged in this case, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on Oct. 28, 2010 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 corporation shall also be punished by a fine under the relevant Article 83 (1) 2" in the above provision of the law.
C. According to the above decision of unconstitutionality, each of the above statutory provisions which are applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case shall be retroactively effective in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.