logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.30 2013고단4073
도로법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of AF vehicle.

On January 15, 1993, B, an employee of the defendant, operated the above vehicle in the condition of loading more than 10 tons of the restricted axis at a point of 20.4 kilometers from the parallel of the Gyeong Highway at the 20.4 kilometers of the Gyeong Highway on January 15, 1993 and violated the restrictions on the operation of the road management authority.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment applied Article 86, Article 84 subparagraph 1, and Article 54 (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; hereinafter the same) to the above facts charged and prosecuted the defendant, and the summary order subject to retrial was notified and finalized.

However, on December 29, 2011, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 86 of the former Road Act, which applies to this case, "if an agent, employee, or other employee of a corporation commits an act of violating Article 84 subparagraph 1 of the same Article in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall also be fined in accordance with the pertinent Article." (The Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201) is unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ga24 Decided December 29, 201). Accordingly, the said provision of the Act retroactively

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

arrow