logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.06.11 2013고단2899
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of B truck.

At around 09:33 on October 9, 1996, C, the Defendant’s employee, operated the truck with the cargo loaded for about 11.8 tons and about 4 tons in excess of 10 tons from the 13.2 km in the 2nd niveal direction of the second line, and violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparag. 1 and Article 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same) to the above charged facts and prosecuted the prosecution.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violation under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined in accordance with the pertinent provision shall also be fined in accordance with the Constitution" (the Constitutional Court Order 201HunGa24 dated December 29, 201), which applies to this case, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow