logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.06.23 2016고정583
식품위생법위반
Text

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000 (private million), but if the above fine is not paid, KRW 100,000 (one million) shall be the day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a (ju) restaurant in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju.

In cases of a general restaurant business, a report shall be filed with the competent authority for each type of business or each place of business, and a report shall also be filed when the size of the place of business, among the reported matters, is changed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without filing a report on the change from October 2015 to November 11, 2015, extended approximately 660 square meters of the area in the said compound, and operated a general restaurant business with business facilities, such as a stone kitchen, a guest seat, two kitchen, a table 47, a table 47, and a chair 278.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each protocol of suspect interrogation of the police accused, E, or F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as field photographs (business contract photographs, etc.), investigation reports attached to building ledgers, business report ledgers, photographs, and contracts (Evidence Nos. 5, 13, 28, 32, 33)

1. Article 97 subparagraph 1 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 (4) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing of Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the detention of a workhouse is as follows: (a) the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and his depth is divided.

In this case, the size of business expansion without permission was wide, but the actual business period was limited to a relatively short period, and the report of change was immediately made after the detection of the instant case.

There is no same criminal history for the defendant.

In addition, it is decided as per the disposition in comprehensive consideration of equity, etc. with cases similar to all other cases concerning sentencing.

arrow