Defendant 1 and one other

Maternity Finding(Court) and Park Jin-jin(Court)

Law Firm Future Law, Attorney Seo Young-young

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,00,000 and by a fine of KRW 500,000, respectively.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

1. Defendant 1

(a) A person who intends to conduct the business of manufacturing explosives shall obtain permission from the competent authorities, and where a person who has obtained permission to conduct the business of manufacturing explosives intends to change the location, structure, facilities, etc. of a factory, he/she shall obtain permission from

Nevertheless, from February 15, 2016 to February 25, 2016, Defendant 1 changed the structure, etc. of a factory by having Defendant 2’s factory room located in Kimhae-si ( Address 1 omitted) without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

(b) A person who intends to blast or burn powders shall obtain permission to use powders from the chief of a police station having jurisdiction over the place using them; and

Nevertheless, at around 14:00 on August 13, 2013, Defendant 1, without the permission of the chief of the competent police station, blastd the DK-600 feet (128 feet) at the storage area in the Yellow Sports Park located in Yangsan-si ( Address 4 omitted).

2. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

As stated in Paragraph 1, Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant Company, committed a violation regarding the duties of Defendant Company.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Defendant 1’s suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecution on May 31, 2016 as to Defendant 1

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 2

1. Permission to change manufacturing facilities of powders;

1. Summary of the assertion

The purport of Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) that permits when changing the structure, etc. of a factory is intended to inspect whether the alteration of a factory that requires the maintenance of security and safety is appropriate.

However, the Defendants were engaged in the basic construction of the floor and the crypt construction work, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction work”) to recover the manufacturing factory damaged by fire in their previous state. As such, the instant construction work did not cause new risks or increase in risk.

Therefore, the instant construction project does not fall under the alteration of the structure of a factory under Article 4(1) of the Act.

2. Determination

According to the evidence, Defendant Company’s factory is divided into one week (this refers to one week, and two and three weeks per week, and one week is divided into a mixed factory laboratory, a sexual factory, and a dry factory laboratory, and a person qualified for handling dangerous goods is in charge of mixing powders while handling dangerous substances, and a dry factory laboratory is in charge of manufacturing products in conformity with the maximum carbon standards by compressing powders produced in a mixed factory laboratory, and a dry factory laboratory is a place for manufacturing products in compliance with the permission for alteration to the effect that the permission for alteration was made in a mixed factory laboratory on December 14, 2015. Defendant 1 is an applicant for alteration to the effect that the permission for alteration was made in a mixed factory laboratory and the permission for alteration was made in accordance with the same fact that it was destroyed by a fire in a mixed factory laboratory on December 14, 2015 (the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency of the Local Police Agency). Defendant 1 is the applicant for alteration to the facts of this case on February 1, 2016.

According to the above facts, the defendants tried to change the building factory laboratory at least to the shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot

Therefore, we cannot accept the defense counsel’s assertion that the instant construction is not subject to permission because it does not fall under the alteration of the structure of a factory under Article 4(1) of the Act.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 70(1)2 and 4(1) of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (the alteration of the structure of an unauthorized factory, the selection of fines), Article 71 Subparag. 2 of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015) and the main sentence of Article 18(1) (the selection of fines) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc.

B. Defendant Company: Articles 76, 70(1)2, and 4(1) of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives (hereinafter “Act”) and Article 76, Article 71 subparag. 2, and the main sentence of Article 18(1) of the former Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (amended by Act No. 12960, Jan. 6, 2015)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Park Jong-do