logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.06.22 2016재고정3 (1)
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 12, 2004, A, an employee of the Defendant, demanded the road manager of the said inspection station to enter the road as measured on the front of the inspection station of the control of the solar restriction on the operation of the solar energy in Gyeyang-gun, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, but refused without good cause.

2. The Constitutional Court Decision 201Hun-Ga20 Decided December 29, 201, applied by a prosecutor to the facts charged in the instant case in accordance with Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920, Jan. 5, 1995; Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005); “When an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense provided for in Article 83(1)3 with respect to the business of the corporation, the said corporation shall also be punished by a fine provided for in the relevant Article.

“The Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality that the part is in violation of the Constitution, and thereby, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a crime, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow