beta
Text
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. On February 27, 1996, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, operated D who drives CK truck, with respect to the Defendant’s business, 8.1 ton, 2 ton, 8.3 ton, 3 ton, 8.8 ton, 10.5 ton, 8.4 ton, 4 ton, 4 ton of total weight 4 ton, 0.5 ton of 4 ton of 4 ton, and 4.1 ton of gross weight 4.5 ton of 4 ton of 4 ton, and 4.1 ton of gross weight 4.1 ton.
2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86, 83(1)2 and 54(1) of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005; hereinafter “former Road Act”) to the facts charged in the instant case, and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to retrial and confirmed.
However, after the above summary order became final and conclusive, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on October 28, 2010 that "where an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, the portion of the fine for negligence under the relevant Article shall be imposed on the corporation, which is in violation of the Constitution" in Article 86 of the former Road Act, and according to the above decision, the above statutory provisions, which are applicable provisions of the facts charged, retroactively lose effect.
Where the penal law or legal provision becomes retroactively null and void due to the decision of unconstitutionality, the defendant's case which was prosecuted by applying the relevant provisions shall be limited to the case where it does not constitute a crime.
(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
more.