logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.06.19 2013고정83
건설산업기본법위반
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to run a construction business shall make a registration with the competent authority unless he/she intends to do so as a business, unless he/she intends to do so.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the construction site located in B, etc. in the East Sea from around December 7, 2009 to April 26, 2010 without registration of construction business, carried out construction business by entering into a subcontract for underwater construction, such as construction works, such as construction works, under the name of D, for which the expected amount of construction work (construction cost) is KRW 71,500,000,000, from the Navy, and the amount of construction work (construction cost) from the

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reply to whether a construction business is registered, a copy of the standard contract for construction works (No. 104), and a copy of the detailed terms and conditions of the standard contract (No. 105);

1. Article 96 Subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201) and Article 9(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201);

1. Penalty fine of KRW 3,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a sentence shall be suspended in consideration of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is running a construction business without registration, that the defendant's failure to register the construction business in a normal manner is derived from the legal site, that the defendant's mistake is contrary to the law, that the defendant is divided, that the gains acquired through the pipeline cleaning construction in this case seems to be little without any criminal power, and that the defendant

arrow