logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.08.28 2013고단1109
도로법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. Specific facts as to the facts charged [2013 Height 1109] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction [2013 Height 1110] around October 11, 2006 by a Defendant’s employee [2013 Height 110] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around November 16, 2006, a Defendant’s employee [2013 Height 111] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around June 12, 2006, a Defendant’s employee [205 Height 112] A’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around May 13: 13:35, 2006 / [2013 Height 1113] Defendant’s violation of vehicle operation restriction around March 314, 2006 / [2015 Height 13, a Defendant’s employee of the Defendant’s employee of the Defendant’s / [2015 Height 14:5, 2014 Height / [214.135 Go14, /2014.201

2. The provision of the former Road Act, which applied to the above facts charged, was retroactively invalidated by the Constitutional Court that rendered a decision of unconstitutionality.

Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow