beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
The summary of the facts charged in this case is the person who is engaged in transportation business as the owner of H vehicle.
1. On October 6, 2001: (a) around 23:21, 2001, at the 48 km branch office of Honam Expressway 48 km branch office of the Korea Highway Corporation, in violation of the restriction on the operation of vehicles by a road management authority by loading more than 1.1 ton of cargo on the third axis and loading more than 10 ton of limited weight, in violation of the restriction on the operation of the said vehicles while operating the said vehicles by an employee of the Defendant
2. On October 7, 2001, around 00:55, at the Cheongju Highway Branching 1111 km of the Central Expressway, the Defendant’s employees violated the restrictions on the operation of vehicles by loading more than 1.32 tons of freight on the third axis and loading more than 10 tons of a limited weight, in violation of the restriction on the operation of vehicles by the Defendant’s employees, while operating the said vehicles.
As to the facts charged in this case, the public prosecutor charged a public action by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the facts charged in this case, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.
On October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," which is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (combined)). Accordingly, the above Article 86 of the former Road Act retroactively lost its effect pursuant to the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Thus, each of the facts charged in this case is not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.