logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.08.16 2017노3315
건설기술진흥법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendants supplied H-type lectures (or H-type lectures that meet the JS standards, which are equivalent to or higher than the Korean Industrial Standards (KS). In such a case, the Defendants could not be deemed to have supplied quality of H-type lectures, but the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (a fine of KRW 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the construction technology promotion Act, the content of Article 88(2) of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, Article 95 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the purport of providing procedural provisions for this purpose, and the fact that there is no provision for exceptions such as the Defendants’ assertion in the Construction Technology Promotion Act, etc., it is apparent that the instant H type lecture conforms to Korean industrial standards, or that the test conducted by the institution prescribed in the statutes by requesting the quality inspection to the institution prescribed in the statutes, and thereby, it is apparent that it falls under the Korean industry standards or the above-mentioned standards, even if it conforms to the Korean industry standards, it constitutes a violation of the Construction Technology Promotion Act unless it goes through the procedure prescribed in the law.

B. ASEAN’s health department, the Defendants asserted that the Chinese company that produced the instant H-type river received the evidence of KSD 3503, and therefore, the KSD D 3502 was practically satisfied. Thus, even if KSD 3503 manies are received, it is identical to the receipt of the evidence of KSD 3502 man, but the KSD 3502 manies were submitted in the first instance trial.

arrow