beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged [2015 Godan1496] The Defendant, an employee, had H drive an IScar or Track Track Track Track Track Hack Hack on April 7, 1997, and H violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by driving the freight loaded with the freight exceeding 44.5m of the total weight exceeding 40m of 159 kilometers at the Gwangju branch office of Honam Expressway 159 kilometers.
[2015 Highest 1501] The Defendant had H, an employee of the Defendant, drive an I truck. On February 4, 1997, H, around 20:50, operated at a point of 11.7 kilometers from the 15.3 kilometers from the 15.3 kilometers from the 15.3 kilometers from the 15.3 kilometers from the 15.3 kilometers from the 1997 Newnam Expressway, in violation of the vehicle operation restriction of the road management authority. On February 13, 1997, around 14:16, the Defendant violated the restriction on the vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the 47.1t cargo loaded with the limited weight exceeding 40 kilometers from the 159 kilometers from the 159 kilometers of the
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005) to each of the facts charged in the instant 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 act in violation of Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine in accordance with Article 83 (1) 2 of the former Road Act (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38)" is in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38). Accordingly, the provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso of
Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure