logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2014.09.26 2014고단594
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of C Truck, and the employee of the Defendant violated the restriction on vehicle operation by the road management authority by operating the above vehicle at the office of the military line on May 15, 1998 at the central expressway at around 06:22 on May 15, 1998 when operating the above vehicle.

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." The defendant was notified of a summary order subject to reexamination and the above summary order against the defendant was finalized.

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

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

arrow