Whether the violation of administrative regulations requires intention or negligence or intention or negligence.

Since sanctions imposed on violations of administrative laws are sanctions based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, in principle, the intention or negligence of the violator is not required unless otherwise provided.

Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act

Plaintiff

The profit-making or loss of the Daegu City Litigation Performers and the Park Service

Daegu High Court Decision 78Gu162 delivered on July 24, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (the facts stated in the supplementary appellate brief are considered to the extent that the grounds of appeal submitted within the statutory period are added).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1, the head of the court below, obtained permission to conduct business on October 197, 197 under the plaintiff's name and operated it, and the non-party 2, the birth of the non-party 1, changed the name of permission under the non-party 3's name, the birth of the non-party 1, and the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the above non-party 1, who were a minor, were subject to a disposition of business suspension for 1 month from the defendant on April 25, 1978, and the court dismissed the administrative litigation in addition to the administrative litigation of the cancellation, and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the management title 2, the non-party 1, the defendant 2, was dismissed.

On the other hand, the court below's review on the records by comparing the process of documentary evidence to recognize the above facts is legitimate, and there is no error of law due to any violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, and the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, inconsistent reasoning, abuse of discretionary power, etc. in the judgment of the court below, as well as misunderstanding of legal principles and the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the original judgment in this paper is not appropriate, and sanctions against the violation of administrative laws are imposed based on the objective facts of violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, unless there is a special provision, the court below's intentional act or negligence is not required in principle. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)