beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (15 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case is deemed to be a single and continuous crime in which the Defendant continued to conduct several acts falling under the name of the same crime, which is multi-family housing B located in Gwangju City, using a construction business registration certificate, etc. from multiple companies, for a single and continuous period of time, and where the legal interests from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single crime. However, where the identity and continuity of a criminal is not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do278, May 13, 2005; 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006). On Oct. 13, 2016, where the Defendant was issued with a summary order of 00 square meters of the total floor area S. 495m2, which is a multi-household house in Gwangju City, around April 13, 2014.
However, the instant apartment house differs from each other of the instant apartment units stated in the facts constituting the crime of the instant summary order and the instant apartment units, and since the building owner is also different and separate buildings, it shall be deemed that each of the construction works constitutes a separate crime. As such, the instant apartment units have the unity or continuity of a crime as it is deemed to be a single comprehensive crime.
It is difficult to see it.
In light of the number of times of leasing the construction business name and the number of construction works and the scale of the building, the crime is not good.
However, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, that the company that completed the registration of the construction business after this case seems to legally engage in the construction business, that there is no record of crimes exceeding the fine, and that there is the age of the defendant.