logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울남부지방법원 2013.11.22 2013고단3516
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. As shown in the separate sheet of facts charged

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Articles 86 and 83(1)2 of the former Road Act (amended by Act No. 7832, Dec. 30, 2005; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Feb. 21, 2008; Act No. 8976, Mar. 21, 2008; and the defendant was notified of the summary order subject to review

On July 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that "if an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation commits an offence provided for in Article 83 (1) 2 in connection with the business of the corporation, a fine provided for in Article 83 (1) of the former Road Act shall also be imposed on the corporation in violation of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2008HunGa17, July 30, 2009)" and accordingly, Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to the proviso to Article 47 (2) of the same Act.

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