beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
Defendant
If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
For the D Hospital located in Asan City, E was awarded a successful bid by auction on May 2014, but people who claimed the lien occupy the above building and claimed the above E and the above E and the lien were replaced by each other.
Defendant
B is a company that received a contract for the repair work for the above hospital building from the above E, and as the above lien claimant was unable to enter the hospital building itself due to the above lien claimant, B intended to employ a private guard company and enter the building.
Any corporation which intends to operate the security business shall, with the permission of the commissioner of the district police agency having jurisdiction over the location of its principal office, specify the security business.
However, on October 28, 2014, F entered into a service contract with B, Inc. and “D Hospital for the purpose of securing and protecting space for construction activities, protecting construction workers and materials, and controlling access, etc.” on or around October 29, 2014 without obtaining permission from the commissioner of a district police agency, and around October 20, 2014, F posted 40 security service personnel, such as H, etc., belonging to the said D Hospital to the said hospital for the said hospital for the purpose of controlling access.
1. On October 28, 2014, Defendant A, as the former official business of Company B, contracted the said F with the said F on behalf of Company B by the J Hospital located in Western-si I on behalf of the said F on behalf of the said B.
Accordingly, the defendant placed security guards at a collective petition site where the lien dispute arises, and ordered the security service to the person who did not obtain the license.
2. The Defendant B Defendant B’s employer, as the above, contracted the security service to the person who did not obtain the license while placing security guards at a collective petition site.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. F. The protocol of interrogation of the police officer regarding F.