logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2016.05.12 2015누7158
과징금부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. From September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff is operating a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant business establishment”) that sells alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer and beer, etc.”) with the trade name “C,” from the second floor (214.2 square meters, 64.9 square meters, etc.) of the building Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “C”).

B. At around November 24, 2014, the chief of the Gwangju Southern Police Station: (a) entered D on the grounds that D, an employee of the instant establishment, sold alcoholic beverages to E (V, 18 years old) who is a juvenile; and (b) notified the Defendant of the discovery.

C. Meanwhile, on December 26, 2014, the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office rendered a decision to suspend indictment, taking into account the following: (a) D's mistake was found to have been caused to D; (b) D's primary offender; (c) the Plaintiff provided alcoholic beverages to D's youth who is part-time employee; and (d) although D's external appearance and physical strength, upon the lapse of two months after D's appearance and physical strength, appears to have been adult; and (b) provided alcoholic beverages without demanding verification of identification card to E because D's personal identity was seated with three adults; and (c) the Plaintiff would not repeat the crime against D's opposition.

In light of the Plaintiff’s statement of opinion (No. 7) as of February 6, 2015 and the decision to suspend indictment as of February 23, 2015, the Defendant given the Plaintiff an opportunity to state his/her opinion, and taking into account the Plaintiff’s statement of opinion as of February 6, 2015 (Evidence No. 7) and the decision to suspend indictment, the Defendant reduced the business suspension on February 23, 2015 against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2015, Articles 44, 75, and 82 of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 13277, Mar. 27, 2015; hereinafter “former Food Sanitation Act”) and Article 89 [Attachment Table 23] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1190, Aug. 18, 2015).

arrow