logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.10.02 2013고단3890
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On June 23, 2004, at around 11:55 on June 23, 2004, A, an employee of the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, operated the Defendant’s vehicle B with a gross weight exceeding 4.53 tons on the front side of a business office located 113km in the Southern Sea Line, thereby violating the road management authority’s vehicle operation restriction.

2. As 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 corporation's business, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under Article 83 (1) 2 of the Act shall also be punished by the Constitution, and the part of the above Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act (amended by Act No. 7832 of Oct. 28, 2010) shall retroactively lose its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow