beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is not subject to punishment as the facts charged in the instant case, but the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged in collusion with FF Co., Ltd. with the contractor with such status.
2. Determination
A. On June 5, 2013, the prosecutor of the facts charged and the applicable provisions of the Act applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment with respect to the facts charged and applicable provisions of the Act, and the court of first instance permitted it on the 14th of the same month. The altered facts charged in the instant case is that “the defendant is the owner of the building on the ground of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the construction supervisor D architect of the building on October 16, 2011 applied for the waiver of construction works by E Co., Ltd. from the construction supervisor D architect of the building on October 31, 2011, he/she was requested to suspend construction until he/she obtains the report on the alteration of the construction participant; however, on January 2, 2011, he/she selected F Co., Ltd. as a new construction executor and continued construction work on or before December 2, 2011,” and the applicable provisions of the Act are “Article 112(4) and Articles 110 subparag. 5 and 25(2)”.
B. (1) Article 112(4) of the Building Act provides that when an agent, employee, or other servant of an individual commits an offense in violation of Article 110 subparag. 5 of the same Act with respect to the business of the individual, not only shall such offender be punished accordingly, but the individual be punished accordingly. Thus, the instant public prosecution is sought to punish the Defendant as an agent, employee, or other servant by committing an offense in violation of Article 110 subparag. 5 and Article 25(2) of the same Act, and is not seeking punishment as an accomplice of the said company.
Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is not related to the prosecution of this case, and there is no reason.
(2) In addition, Article 25 (2) of the same Act does not apply to a project supervisor, in violation of the same Act, orders or dispositions under that Act, or other relevant statutes.