logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.21 2016노421
건설산업기본법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The statement of defense counsel’s opinion submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal shall be considered only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, Defendant A, an operator of Defendant C Co., Ltd., did not lend the name of Defendant C Co., Ltd. with respect to the reconstruction work in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to Defendant C Co., Ltd., but rather had Defendant C Co., Ltd. perform the said reconstruction work under the actual involvement of Defendant C Co., Ltd. after concluding an agreement with Defendant B. Nevertheless, Defendant A lent the name of Defendant C Co., Ltd.

In light of the above, the court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged (paragraphs 1, 2-b, 3 of the judgment below) and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B, and C: each fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court rejected the allegation on the following grounds, and convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged.

① Defendant B was unable to independently perform construction works for reconstruction on the land surface other than AD in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction works”) due to the lack of construction license.

② The owner of the instant construction works entered into a contract for reconstruction works with the instant C&C Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C&C Construction”), but Defendant B entered into a contract for the instant construction works upon introduction by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

③ Defendant Company and Defendant B on April 26, 2012

arrow