logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.02.01 2016고단9
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. A, an employee of the Defendant, was in violation of the restriction on the operation of the road management agency by operating a vehicle of 1.47 tons for B 15 tons and 10.62 tons of cargo (Cement) at the third axis of the 3 axis of B 15 tons in excess of the restricted weight of 10 tons on the road in front of the inspection station of the Gyeong-gun-gun, Gangwon-do at around 17:05 on December 3, 1993, with respect to the duties of the Defendant.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 84 subparag. 1, and 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 to institute a public prosecution.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court on December 29, 201 shall, where an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) of the former Road Act in relation to the business of the corporation, also be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article.

“The Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga decided on December 29, 2011 (the Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga24 decided on December 29, 201) that the part of the Constitution is in violation of the Constitution, thereby retroactively lose its effect in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

In addition, where the penal law or the legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provision shall be deemed to be a crime.

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

arrow