logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.08.07 2018고단296
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, a juristic person established for the purpose of the mid-term lending business and the business incidental thereto, is the owner of A15 tons dump truck. With respect to the business, on November 22, 1993, the employees of the Defendant loaded soil on the above vehicle on the road No. 25 of the National Highway No. 25 of Masan National Road before Masan, and operated 3 tons each of them on the 2 and 3 fump sp truck.

2. The judgment prosecutor's punishment of a fine of KRW 300,00 was finalized by filing a public prosecution in accordance with Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545, Mar. 10, 193; Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995); however, when an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the said Act in relation to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined under the said Article.

“The portion of the Constitutional Court Decision 2011 Constitutional Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga, dated December 29, 2011, retroactively lost its effect due to the 24th decision of unconstitutionality.

Therefore, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow