logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2016.02.03 2015고정205
방문판매등에관한법률위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, under the trade name “C” on September 25, 2013, is a person who has acquired business registration as a visiting seller (registration number: D) from the head of the Dong-based tax office.

No visiting seller shall inform the fact that he/she is false or exaggerated while running his/her business, induce or trade with consumers by using deceptive means, or interfere with the termination of contract, such as the withdrawal of subscription.

Nevertheless, on May 22, 2015, the Defendant had resided in E Apartment 1, 616 at around 14:30 on May 22, 2015 at around 14:30, E Apartment 1, 616.

F ? Doz. ?

The “urban gas inspection” has been conducted by the inquirer.

After opening the door, “A gas inspection is conducted as if it were a person conducting urban gas inspection,” and as if it were the one conducting urban gas inspection, the Plaintiff sent a siren back to his hand with the oil time, and led the replacement, and then sold the goods “the first one for kitchen use” after receiving KRW 35,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Written statements of preparation of the F;

1. The occurrence of the case, the arrest report, and the photograph of the product (the defendant clearly stated that he visited FF by replacing a post-rupture pen)

One of the arguments is that the defendant has consistently inspected the gas in the investigative agency and this court.

on the other hand, the defendant had opened a door and requested the price after he voluntarily replaced the pen.

In light of the fact that F makes a statement, and the F appears to have no reason to gather the defendant due to the falsehood, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to believe.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 61 (1) 1 and Article 11 (1) 2 of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. for Punishment of Criminal Facts and the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. for which Punishment is elective;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act involving Costs of Trial;

arrow