beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant F Co., Ltd. is reversed.
Defendant
Punishment against F.C.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered is too unreasonable for each penalty (each fine of three million won) which is declared by the court below.
2. Determination
A. It is recognized that Defendant D’s judgment on Defendant D’s appeal divided his mistake.
However, Defendant D not only has been punished three times due to the violation of the Construction Business Act, but also has the history of fines and suspended execution for a crime that is subject to a concurrent punishment. Each of the crimes of this case requires strict punishment on the grounds that it may hinder the development of the construction industry and cause unexpected damage to the ordering person due to the occurrence of defective execution. In addition, taking into account all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
Therefore, Defendant D’s assertion is without merit.
B. According to the records of this case’s judgment on Defendant F’s appeal, Defendant F did not submit a written reason for appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the records of trial on May 13, 2015, even after receiving the notice of receipt of the records of trial on May 13, 2015, and the petition of appeal does not state the reason for appeal ( Defendant F appointed a private defense counsel on June 29, 2015, after receiving the notice of receipt of the records of trial, and the private defense counsel submitted a written reason for appeal that the sentence of the lower court was too unfair because the sentence of the lower court was too too far past June 29, 2015, which was far after the receipt of the records of trial. However, it is recognized that each of the crimes of this case is likely to hinder the development of the construction industry due to the defective construction of the construction industry and cause injury to the project owner, as well as that it may cause injury to the industrial safety at the construction site.
However, Defendant F Co., Ltd. is in depth divided his mistake, and it has reached the point of view.