logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.05.22 2013고단1528
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 16, 1994, at around 19:43, the Defendant is the owner of the vehicle A, and around 13.4 tons, the Defendant, who is the employee of the Defendant, operated the said vehicle while loaded the said vehicle with a stones of more than 11.04 tons exceeding 10 tons of the restricted weight on the first axis of the said vehicle, and around 21:31 on March 16, 1994, at around 21:31 on March 16, 1994, the Defendant violated the restriction on the operation of the road management authority by operating the said vehicle while loaded the said vehicle with a stone of more than 1.04 tons of the restricted weight on the first axis of the said vehicle.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86 and Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 4545 of Mar. 10, 1993, and amended by Act No. 4920 of Jan. 5, 1995) to the above charged facts, and the court issued a summary order of KRW 200,00 to the defendant as of June 94, 1994, and the above summary order was finalized after the notice to the defendant was given at that time, but the defendant filed a request for review of the above summary order on the ground that the above provision was unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Article 86 of the above Act provides that "if an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Article 84 (1) in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine under the corresponding Article shall also be imposed on the corporation," the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the 201Hun-Ga24 dated December 29, 201 should be in violation of the Constitution. In accordance with the above decision of unconstitutionality, the above provision of the law has retroactively lost its effect.

3. In conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the judgment of not guilty against the defendant under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow