[1] Whether an actor who is not a mid-term owner under Article 36 of the former Mid-Term Management Act is subject to the penal provisions of each of the penal provisions of this Article against a mid-term owner (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the director of the company's management division is responsible for violation of the former mid-term Management Act

[1] Article 34 subparagraph 3 of the former mid-term Management Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) and Article 12 (4) of the former mid-term Management Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) are clear by their own provisions that the former owner is a mid-term owner. However, Article 36 of the same Act provides, in cases where a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation or natural person commits an act under Articles 32 through 35 regarding the business of the corporation or natural person, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or natural person shall be punished by a fine under each Article. The purpose of this provision is to punish both the former and the former owner even if the former owner is a corporation or individual who is a mid-term owner and the latter owner is not a direct owner. Thus, this provision applies mutatis mutandis to each of the penal provisions of this Article.

[2] The case affirming the court below's determination that the director of the division in charge of the overall management of the mid-term period, etc. belonging to the company, even though he did not take part in the above mid-term period, he was responsible for the violation of the former mid-term Management Act, on the ground that he was a person in charge of the mid-term management of the company, who is the legal manager of the above mid-term period, and was a person in charge

[1] Articles 12(4), 34 subparag. 3, and 36 of the former Medium-Term Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) / [2] Articles 12(4), 34 subparag. 3, and 36 of the former Medium-Term Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Do384 delivered on December 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13473), Supreme Court Decision 82Do2840 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 278), Supreme Court Decision 90Do2597 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong191, 1121), Supreme Court Decision 91Do801 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 157), Supreme Court Decision 92Do2324 delivered on November 10, 192 (Gong193, 163)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 95No58, 877 delivered on August 10, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Article 34 subparag. 3 and Article 12(4) of the Mid-Term Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) are clear by the provision itself that the person is a mid-term owner. However, Article 36 of the same Act provides that if a representative of a juristic person, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a juristic person or natural person commits an act falling under the provisions of Articles 32 through 35 in connection with the business of the juristic person or natural person, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the juristic person or natural person shall be punished by a fine under each Article, and the purport of each provision is to punish both the former and the former owner even in cases where the juristic person or individual who is a mid-term owner of each violation of each provision of this Article is not a direct owner of the Construction Machinery Management Act, and thus, the penal provisions of each provision of this Article are applicable to the latter owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1329, Dec. 19, 192).

According to the records, as the director of the management division of the non-indicted corporation, he can recognize the fact that the defendant is in charge of the overall affairs of the management of each of the mid-term period, etc. of this case belonging to the non-indicted corporation, and as such, as long as the defendant is in charge of the management of the above mid-term period, etc., even though he was in charge of the above mid-term period, he shall be deemed as the person in charge of the mid-term management of the company, who is the legal manager of the above mid-term period, and even though he was in charge of the above mid-term period management, the defendant shall be deemed as the person in charge of the mid-term management of the company. Therefore, in the same purport, the court below's decision that the defendant is in charge

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)