logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.08.14 2020고단2391
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the owner of B truck with a corporate body established for the purpose of cargo transportation services, etc., and C is the driver of the above truck and the employee of the defendant.

On May 21, 199, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by carrying a PV pipe on the above B truck in the YY Haak-si Haak-si, Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, and by carrying a PV pipe on the 35 line of national highways with the 35 line, in order to prevent any danger of road structure and operation from being maintained at the 10 tons, total weight of 40 tons, height of 40 tons, width of 2.5 meters, length of 19 meters, while the Defendant restricted the operation exceeding 19 meters in length, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by driving the truck at a height of 4.2 meters and driving more than 0.2 meters at a height of 4.2 meters.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995, and amended by Act No. 7832 of Dec. 30, 2005) to the part that "if an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 83 (1) 2 with respect to the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be fined under the corresponding Article." As to this, the defendant received a summary order subject to review from this court on Nov. 25, 199, based on the above provision, and around that time, the above summary order became final and conclusive.

However, on October 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the law as of October 28, 2010 (see Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga14, 15, 21, 27, 35, 38, 44, 70 (merger) and thus, the above provision of the law was retroactively invalidated in accordance with the proviso of Article 47(2) of the Constitutional Court Act.

3. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime.

arrow