logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.13 2020고단7274
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of KRW 50,00 (hereinafter "the summary order subject to review") on July 9, 1997 with regard to the summary order prosecuted under Articles 86, 84 subparagraph 1, and 54 (1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of March 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of January 5, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the defendant, and the summary order subject to review became final and conclusive around that time.

On September 24, 2020, the defendant requested a retrial on September 24, 202, and this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on October 19, 2020 on the ground that there were grounds for retrial under Article 47(4) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Act in a summary order subject to a retrial. The decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive around that time

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is an employee, should exercise due care and supervision to prevent the excessive operation of the Defendant’s business when operating the C Truck in connection with the Defendant’s business, and as such, the Defendant neglected to do so on March 13, 1997, and operated the 11.2 tons of freight on the 4 axis of the said vehicle, even though the Defendant could not operate more than 10 tons on the street in front of the vehicle inspection station at the transmission station, even though he could not operate more than 36.2 kilometers of the 36.2 kilometers of the Coast Highway.

3. Where the Acts and subordinate statutes on punishment have retroactively lost its validity due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, a prosecuted case against which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be pronounced not guilty under Article 325

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do5986, Dec. 16, 2010). When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 86 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 1993; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995) in Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995).

arrow