logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2013.05.16 2013고단96
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged (2013Kadan96) on April 11, 2006, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, loaded a 44.61 ton of the total weight exceeding 40 ton as C driver from the street on the right side of the central expressway Busan at a point 261.6km in Busan, and 4.61 ton of more than 4.61 to 4.61 ton, and 10 ton of more than 1.30 ton of 11.30 ton of 11.30 ton of the 2 ton of the limited axis and loaded on the above vehicle in a mountain.

(2013Noh97) On September 4, 2005, the Defendant, an employee of the Defendant, was loaded and operated on the street in front of the Central Highway at each of the North Korean Highway, with a total weight of 40 tons exceeding 4.15 tons as C vehicle drivers, and with a total weight of 44.15 tons as C vehicle drivers at each of the North Korean Highway located at each of the North Korean Highway.

(1) On April 15, 2005, the Defendant loaded 1.02 tons of more than 1.2 tons of more than 1.2 tons and 44.61 tons of gross weight exceeding 4.61 tons into 4.61 tons to a vehicle driver, on the street at a point other than 4 km in Busan, the central highway direction on April 7, 2005, to a vehicle driver, and 11.02 tons of more than 1.2 tons of more than 4.61 tons, and 1.83 tons of more than 4.83 tons of 44.61 tons into a mountain.

(2013Kadan99) On November 17, 2007, the Defendant, an employee of D, violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management agency by operating the said vehicle while he loaded the said vehicle with freight of 1.19 tons exceeding 1.19 tons of the restricted weight of 10 tons in the said vehicle as E driver in front of the business office of the Korea Highway Corporation located at a point 253.8km from the mid-gu Highway Corporation.

2. The judgment (2013Hun-Ma97, 98) is that the facts charged above fall under Articles 86, 83(1)2, and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005); however, the Constitutional Court does not comply with the above provisions.

arrow