beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
Facts charged [2014 Highest 115]
1. On February 18, 2005, at around 15:32, the Defendant was a truck owner corporation, and around February 18, 2005, his employee B violated the restriction on vehicle operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle with limited weight exceeding 1.30 tons at the main truck business office of the Korea Highway Corporation, which was loaded with freight exceeding 1.30 tons.
[2014 Highest 116]
2. On May 5, 2004, around 04:52 on May 5, 2004, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of vehicles by a road management authority by operating the said vehicle as loaded with freight of at least 11.04 tons in the 3 livestock 10 tons, in excess of the limited weight of 10 tons at the 3 livestock 10 tons.
[2014 Highest 117]
3. Around September 18, 2001, the Defendant is a truck owner corporation, and around September 26, 2002, D, its employee, in relation to the Defendant’s business, operated the said vehicle with a limited weight exceeding 10 tons at the 12.7 tons at a 2 livestock shed, and 13.5 tons at a 3 livestock shed, thereby violating the restriction on the operation of the vehicle by the road management authority.
Judgment
A public prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution against each of the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 86 and 83(1)2 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 the same shall apply). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the relevant Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," in Article 86 of the former Road Act, that "if the agent, employee, or other worker of the corporation commits a violation under Article 83(1)2 of the former Road Act, the provision of the said Act retroactively loses its effect (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga38, Oct. 28
Thus, each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime.