logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.17 2017노180
건설산업기본법위반
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As alleged in the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) (1) as indicated in the lower judgment, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant company”) was awarded a contract for the installation and repair of H apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the facility maintenance and management business entity around January 6, 201, at the meeting of the representatives of H apartment occupants of H, for a cost of KRW 700 million, and the installation and maintenance of facilities that can be deemed essential parts of the facility maintenance and management business (hereinafter “instant contract”). In the event that the Defendant company directly purchased a contract for the installation and maintenance of H apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), all of the inspection and maintenance of the facilities that can be deemed as essential parts of the facility maintenance and management business, and thereafter, only part of the construction cost of the facility repair and management work, which did not amount to 70% of the total construction cost, was removed from the pre-construction business entity, such as the subcontracted construction work, and the subcontracted construction business entity may not be deemed as a subcontractor for the same type of business.

This is more so in light of the principle of strict interpretation of penal provisions of criminal law.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case has erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the penalty of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentencing that the court below decided against the defendant is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) Framework Act on Construction Industry and Framework Act on Construction Industry.

arrow