logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.26 2020고정608
건설기계관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to conduct construction machinery business (construction machinery maintenance business) shall register with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu for each type of business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, on October 14, 2019, the Defendant engaged in construction machinery maintenance business, such as construction machinery maintenance business, without separately registering construction machinery maintenance business, while running construction machinery rental business between 'C' in Sung-si B, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E in part of the defendant;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant engaged in the construction machinery rental business was not allowed to conduct the above maintenance business, and that it was not "business". However, the construction machinery rental business is defined as "construction machinery rental business" and "construction machinery maintenance business" under the Construction Machinery Management Act as "business for the smooth use of construction machinery, such as disassembly, assembling or repairing construction machinery, and processing, manufacturing, and replacing its parts," and considering the fact that Article 21 of the same Act provides for registration by type of business. In light of the above, the defendant's assertion that the defendant misleads the defendant that he should be allowed to conduct the above repair business is merely a site under the law and does not accept it.

In addition, whether construction machinery maintenance business is "business" or not should be determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the repetition continuity of maintenance act, business nature, etc., and the purpose, size, frequency, period, and mode of the act. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant requested repair of the D excavation machines owned by others from E and accepted them.

arrow