(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.22 2016노14 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.22 2016노14

식품위생법위반

Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The sentence shall be suspended against the defendant;

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The area of the place of business at the time when the Defendant had operated the instant marina was more than 300 square meters.

Although there is no evidence to support the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant’s place of business of the said marina is more than 300 square meters at the time of operating the instant marina.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) In the general building ledger on the instant marina building, the entire size of the marina is indicated as 428.75 square meters.

2) On June 16, 2015, A filed a report on other food sales business with respect to the instant marina, and around that time, A’s place of business of the said marina is 384.59 square meters.

3) At the time of the crackdown on the instant violation (round November 2014), the time when the Defendant transferred the instant marina business to A, and the time when two months elapsed since the date when the Defendant transferred the instant marina business to A, A operated as if he had been the previous business owner (Defendant) at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s court’s “after the instant marina acquisition,” and did not separately proceed with construction of structural change, etc. after receiving the instant marina.

“The lower court made the statement.”

4) A, “At the time of the Defendant’s operation of the instant marina, he displayed beverages in a space where the stuff was accumulated, and the space used at the refined landing point where the garment was located in the said marina, eventually, sales space increased rather than when the Defendant was operated.

“The statement made to the effect that it was “,” but according to the statement made by A, it is necessary to change the display method of the selling product without any separate structural change or to change the lease contract with the business owner of refined land.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.29 2015나3533

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.04.06 2015가단17800

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2015.12.14 2015고정283

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017노3680

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.22 2015가합21245