logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.04.19 2018고정7
화학물질의등록및평가등에관한법률위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A as a director of corporation B, a person in charge of the production process and distribution of the above company, and the defendant corporation B is a corporation with the purpose of specialized manufacture of industrial chemical products.

1. No person who is a defendant A shall sell any product that does not meet the labelling standards for risk products publicly notified pursuant to Article 34 of the Act on Registration, Evaluation, etc. of Chemicals;

On December 4, 2015, the Defendant sold 14 motor vehicle-type presses at the vehicle-type presses, which are products likely to harm the factory of the above company, without attaching an inspection mark to the manufacturer in the process of manufacturing the crating presses and product numbers D.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed a violation as set forth in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) above.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A public official's statement (E);

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that the product status (D), credit card sales slips (D) in violation of the product labelling standard for danger (the Defendants and the defense counsel claimed as follows:

It is the fact that the person posted the inspection display Stick, but after the sale, the Stickick was left away.

However, considering the fact that the defendants are posted to other products, it is not difficult to find out the fact that the Stackers posted at the beginning are left away when considering the way of posting the Stackers to the display of the Stackers.

Rather, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendants did not put a boiler.

It is reasonable to judge.

The Defendants’ assertion is not accepted (as long as the facts are determined, Defendant B did not neglect due care and supervision to prevent the violation.

No. 3.

arrow