beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.
If the above defendant does not pay the fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A is a building owner of reinforced concrete buildings equivalent to one story, six stories above ground, and area equivalent to 4914.32 square meters in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, and three lots of land.
Where a project owner constructs a building for the use, size and structure prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she shall designate an architect or a person prescribed by Presidential Decree as a project supervisor and have him/her conduct construction supervision.
Nevertheless, the above defendant, around 15:00 on October 2, 2013, did not place a resident construction supervisor at the construction site of the above building or at the construction site of the above building, and had him/her perform underground excavation works using sckes, etc.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant A's partial statement
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. Application of the statutes to be entered in an order issued to suspend construction works due to a lack of construction supervision;
1. Article 110 Subparag. 4 of the Building Act and Articles 110 and 25 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Criminal Crimes; Selection of fines;
1. The above defendant's assertion on the defendant A of Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the Nowon-gu Station at the time of the construction of the instant construction project is likely to collapse earth and sand at the time of the construction of the instant construction project, and thus, the construction was inevitably made to protect the lives and safety of residents, so it constitutes an emergency evacuation.
Witness
According to E’s legal statement, the above Defendant’s assertion is not accepted, since it is difficult to view that the above Defendant’s act constitutes an act of avoiding current danger to another person’s legal interests, since it did not constitute an act of avoiding current danger to other person’s legal interests. It is difficult to view that the above Defendant’s act constitutes an act of avoiding the current danger to other person’s legal interests.