(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.23 2017노3346 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.23 2017노3346

건설산업기본법위반

Text

Defendant

B All appeals filed against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable that the lower court’s sentence imposed on Defendant A (or four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B shows an attitude that Defendant B’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing of Defendant B is both aware of his mistake, and Defendant B has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.

In addition, it seems that Defendant B did not have construction without having construction techniques or qualities to the extent that it would pose a serious threat to public safety.

However, each of the crimes of this case, which Defendant B lent a construction business license and constructed one multi-family house with a total floor area of 605m24m2, may cause social harm due to defective construction, and the nature of the crime may not be less than that of the crime.

Considering the above circumstances and favorable circumstances to Defendant B as well as the circumstances of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of Defendant B, sexual conduct, environment, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by Defendant B is without merit.

B. Defendant A, who did not hold a construction business license, had Defendant B execute the above multi-family house using the trade name of the construction company that Defendant A had operated. Considering social harm such as threats to public safety due to the lending of construction business license, the nature of the crime is not easy.

On the other hand, the defendant A shows an attitude against both the defendant A and the defendant A had no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.

The above defendant A is disadvantageous or unfavorable to the defendant A.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.06.12 2017노55

-수원지방법원 2018.02.12 2017노3203

-수원지방법원 2017.10.30 2016노4567

-창원지방법원 2017.02.16 2016노1835

-수원지방법원 2018.07.23 2018노2086