logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.09.15 2017고단1081
골재채취법위반
Text

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by each fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. As a de facto representative of the Company B in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-si, Defendant A or a seller of aggregate was prohibited from supplying or selling aggregate not certified as meeting the Korean industrial standards under the Industrial Standardization Act, or not selling or selling aggregate not conforming to the quality standards for each usage of aggregate from July 2014 to November 28, 2016, Defendant A sold aggregate 425,195 cubic meters from the construction site of the said Company without obtaining such certification.

2. The Defendant Company B was a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling aggregate, and at the time and place specified in the above paragraph (1), the Defendant violated the Aggregate Extraction Act by committing the above violations with regard to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A written accusation;

1. A list of aggregate quantities taken out;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the quantity of aggregate unpaid for quality inspection and specified in the production year);

1. Article 49 subparagraph 4-2 of Article 49 and Article 22-4 (1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act, Defendant B who is selected as a fine: Articles 51, 49 subparagraph 4-2 of Article 49 and Article 22-4 (1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act, inclusive;

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the Provisional Payment Order: First of all, the Defendants alleged to the effect that they did not have any intention to violate the law of this case against each of the Defendants’ assertions by Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; however, the Defendants alleged to the effect that they had no intention to commit the violation of the law of this case against Defendant A. However, the subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime refers to the perception of specific facts. As long as Defendant A was aware of selling aggregate without obtaining certification, there was no intention.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

arrow