beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged:
A. On 14:00 on 14:14:0 on 14:5, 200, the Defendant’s employee violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by operating more than 3.2 meters wide in excess of 2.5 meters wide, at the control station of the vehicles for the 5 line-based mobile restriction (influence) on the 5 line-based mobile operation (influence) on the river road of Seogu-si, Seogu-si, Seogu,
B. 1) On December 25, 2003, at the oil station located in Korea-based 3.1 kilometer of the branch line of the highway South and North Korea-based on the expressway, around 10:26, the Defendant’s employee violated the vehicle operation restriction of the road management agency by loading and operating freight exceeding 4.41 meters high of 4.0 meters high of 4.0 meters; 2) December 26, 2003, 209:27, 10: at the control office of the large-scale bulk vehicle located in the 25 line of the Masan-si National Road No. 25 of the Masan-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant’s employee violated the restriction on the operation of the road management agency’s vehicle by loading and operating the freight exceeding 4.21 meters high of 4.0 meters high of the freight truck;
C. On March 8, 2003, around 14:01, 200, at the control station of large-scale vehicle traffic restrictions (e.g., overland traffic restrictions (f., overland traffic restrictions) on the 25 line location of the Masan National Road 14:01, the Defendant’s employee violated the restriction on the operation of the vehicle of the road management agency by loading and operating cargo at a height exceeding 4.20 meters higher than 4.20 meters.
2. In the decision of 2010 Hun-Ga23, 24, 36, 39, 47, and 50 (Joint) rendered on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the corporation's business, the portion of the above provision of the Act shall be amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and the whole amendment by Act No. 8976 of Mar. 21, 2008) applied by the prosecutor to each of the above facts charged by the public prosecutor is in violation of the Constitution." Accordingly, the part of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act shall be in violation of the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the Act.