logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.07.20 2016노768
건설산업기본법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 8(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Industry Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree provision of this case”) which applies to the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine provides that “construction work is a type of construction work performing specialized construction work and construction work falling under the scope of duties in such category of construction work without registering with the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the cost of construction work is below KRW 15 million.” As such, the amount below KRW 15 million under the above provision of this case requires all persons who intend to engage in construction business to register the construction business, and gives difficulty in maintaining the livelihood of small business operators who do not have the registration, thereby infringing upon the freedom of occupation and the right to pursue happiness.”

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant by applying the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s private defense counsel’s attorney’s written opinion on May 25, 2017 stated on the ground of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, but the notice of receipt of court records against the Defendant was served on December 27, 2016. As such, the allegation of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine was filed later than the submission period for the written reason for appeal, and the allegation of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is not written in the petition of appeal or the written reason for appeal, and thus,

B. On its own initiative, I examine the argument of misunderstanding of the above legal principles, the legislative purport of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, necessity for the registration of construction business, and the registration of construction business in principle, and exceptionally, the purpose and content of Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which stipulates that construction business may be operated without registration, only in cases where a construction business is operated as a business.

arrow