logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.22 2013고정5914
건설기술관리법위반
Text

Defendant

A A Fines of 2,00,000 won, Defendant B and Defendant C of each fine of 1,00,000,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is the actual operator of Company E, who has engaged in the business of maintaining and managing facilities from May 201 to March 2013, 201, and is the actual operator of Company B, who has been engaged in the business of maintaining and managing facilities from May 201 to March 201. From June 201 to June 201, Company B, who is the actual operator of Company B, who is engaged in the business of installing water supply and sewerage systems from June 201 to 902, and from December 201, Company C, who is engaged in the business of installing landscaping facilities from the above F9th to March 201.

At the end of July, 2011, the Defendant called by facsimile to call if necessary, and sent 3 million won to the person who was in contact with him by telephone in facsimile, and borrowed the career certificate of construction technology of G from the career of construction technology.

From August 2, 2011 to September 9, 2011, the Defendant pretended that G had not actually employed G from Co., Ltd. to the said company during the said period, and used G career certificate as if G had been employed by the said company.

B. From September 9, 2011 to October 21, 2011, the Defendant pretended that G had been employed by the said company during the said period, and used the career certificate of construction technology of G as if G had not actually employed G from September 9, 201.

C. From October 21, 2011 to August 14, 2012, the Defendant, who did not actually employ G from Company B, used the career certificate for construction technology of G, pretending that G had been employed by the said company during the said period.

2. Defendant C, who was the actual operator, committed the above violation in relation to the Defendant’s business.

3. Defendant B, who was the actual operator, committed the above violation in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A protocol of suspect examination of G police officers;

1. Application of statutes governing career certificates to construction engineers;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Subparagraph 4 (b) of Article 42-2, respectively.

arrow