Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Gambry(prosecution), Kim Jong-soo, and knife(trial)

Busan District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 1200 Decided May 6, 2013

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1 and 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of four million won and by a fine of eight million won, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in each Labor House.

(11) Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, ① the date of April 11, 2006, ② the date of June 3, 2006, ③ the date of September 18, 2006, ④ the date of December 5, 2006, ⑤ the removal of the parking lot of the faculty on February 2, 2007, ⑤ the removal of hospital, ceiling, etc. on February 2, 2007, ④ the removal of hospital, etc. and the disposal of fixtures, 7. 3. 8. 207, Sep. 20, 2007; 8. 3. 207; 9. 1, Oct. 22, 2007; 207; 8. 1, Oct. 24, 2007; 207; 19, Jun. 6, 2006>

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant 1: fine of KRW 10,00,000 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court judgment): fine of KRW 20,000,000) are too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, we examine ex officio the number of crimes charged in the instant case and whether the statute of limitations has lapsed.

B. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A person who intends to conduct the business of dismantling non-meters or structures shall register the business of dismantling non-meters or structures with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

피고인은 국토해양부장관에게 등록을 하지 아니하고, ① 2006. 4. 11.경부터 같은 해 5. 28.경까지 부산 (주소 1 생략)에 있는 △△대학교 □□□병원에서 천정 및 벽체철거공사를 공사비 1,045만원에 시공하고, ② 2006. 6. 3.경부터 같은 해 7. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체, 천정, 바닥 철거공사를 공사비 1,100만원에 시공하고, ③ 2006. 12. 5.경부터 2007. 1. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 천정벽체 철거 및 집기물 처리 공사를 공사비 2,400만원에 시공하고, ④ 2006. 9. 18.경부터 같은 해 10. 25.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체, 비트공사를 공사비 1,680만원에 시공하고, ⑤ 2007. 2. 2.경부터 같은 해 3. 19.경까지 위 병원에서 교직원주차장 철거공사를 공사비 1,705만원에 시공하고, ⑥ 2007. 2. 2.경부터 같은 해 7. 27.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체철거 및 집기물 처리공사를 공사비 1,150만원에 시공하고, ⑦ 2007. 9. 20.경부터 같은 달 30.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체철거 및 집기물 처리공사를 공사비 1,100만원에 시공하고, ⑧ 2007. 10. 23.경부터 같은 달 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체, 집기물 처리공사를 공사비 1,375만원에 시공하고, ⑨ 2007. 10. 22.경부터 같은 해 11. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체철거, 집기물 처리공사를 공사비 1,500만원에 시공하고, ⑩ 2007. 11. 13.경부터 같은 해 12. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 ◁◁관 2층 앞 주택건물 철거 및 잔토정리공사를 공사비 1,150만원에 시공하고, ⑪ 2007. 12. 18.경부터 2008. 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체, 바닥 철거공사를 공사비 1,700만원에 시공하고, ⑫ 2008. 1. 19.경부터 같은 해 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체, 바닥, 철거공사를 공사비 2,050만원에 시공하고, ⑬ 2008. 3. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체 철거, 집기물 처리공사를 공사비 1,600만원에 시공하는 등 2006. 4.경부터 2008. 2.경까지 13회에 걸쳐 총공사비 합계 1억 9,555만원 상당의 비계·구조물해체공사를 시공하여 비계·구조물해체공사업을 영위하였다.

1. A person who intends to operate an indoor building business shall register his/her indoor building business with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs;

피고인은 국토해양부장관에게 등록을 하지 아니하고, ① 2006. 4. 11.경부터 같은 해 6. 30.경까지 부산 (주소 1 생략)에 있는 △△대학교 □□□병원에서 천정 설치공사를 공사비 1,100만원에 시공하고, ② 2006. 5. 10.경부터 같은 해 6. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 설치작업공사를 공사비 1,815만원에 시공하고, ③ 2006. 2. 24.경부터 같은 해 4. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체 설치공사를 공사비 2,310만원에 시공하고, ④ 2006. 9. 6.경부터 2007. 2. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 설치공사를 공사비 1,540만원에 시공하고, ⑤ 2006. 9. 6.경부터 2007. 2. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 공사를 공사비 1,199만원에 시공하고, ⑥ 2006. 12. 17.경부터 2007. 2. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 공사를 공사비 1,023만원에 시공하고, ⑦ 2006. 12. 27.경부터 2007. 2. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 공사를 공사비 1,485만원에 시공하고, ⑧ 2006. 12. 7.경부터 2007. 2. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 공사를 공사비 1,155만원에 시공하고, ⑨ 2006. 12. 7.경부터 2007. 2. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 공사를 공사비 1,540만원에 시공하고, ⑩ 2006. 11. 29.경부터 2007. 4. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체설치공사를 공사비 1,078만원에 시공하고, ⑪ 2007. 7. 31.경부터 같은 해 9. 29.경까지 위 병원의 천정 작업공사를 공사비 1,144만원에 시공하고, ⑫ 2007. 7. 31.경부터 같은 해 9. 29.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 설치공사를 공사비 1,276만원에 시공하고, ⑬ 2007. 7. 31.경부터 같은 해 10. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 설치공사를 공사비 1,430만원에 시공하고, ⑭ 2007. 12. 3.경부터 같은 달 31.경까지 위 병원에서벽체 공사를 2,475만원에 시공하고, ⑮ 2007. 12. 3.경부터 같은 달 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정공사를 공사비 1,595만원에 시공하고, 2007. 12. 18.경부터 2008. 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 공사를 공사비 공사비 1,122만원에 시공하고, 2008. 1. 9.경부터 같은 해 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 설치공사를 공사비 1,265만원에 시공하고, 2008. 3. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 공사를 공사비 1,100만원에 시공하고, 2008. 3. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 공사를 공사비 2,200만원에 시공하고, 2008. 2. 하순경부터 같은 해 4. 중순경까지 위 병원에서 천정 텍스공사를 공사비 22,548,240원에 시공하고, (21) 2010. 4. 1.경부터 같은 달 22.경까지 부산 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 ◎◎◎◎병원에서 천정, 벽체 마감공사를 공사비 1억 3,000만원에 시공하는 등 2006. 4.경부터 2010. 4.경까지 21회에 걸쳐 총공사비 합계 431,068,240원 상당의 실내건축공사를 시공하여 실내건축공사업을 영위하였다.

2. A person who intends to operate a business of assembling roof and board buildings shall register the business of assembling roof and board buildings with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not register with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, from July 14, 2009 to February 24, 2009, executed the team construction work of the water treatment room and the waiting room for the rooftop care room at the above △△ Hospital with the construction cost of 19.5 million won.

C. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendants guilty on the ground that the Defendants’ respective crimes of this case were a single comprehensive crime (the Defendants deemed to be a single comprehensive crime, considering all the construction works of the Defendants as a single business crime), and that the statute of limitations has run from the time the final construction works, which was the time when the final crime was completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002).

D. Determination as to whether the number of crimes in the party deliberation and the statute of limitations have lapsed

1) Where a number of acts falling under the name of the same crime continues for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of a criminal's intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do278, May 13, 2005; 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006, etc.).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are recognized according to the health team and the record as to the instant case.

A) Defendant 1 operated the instant construction at ○○○○brida without registration, and operated the instant construction at △△ University △△ University Hospital in a total of 13 times. Defendant 2, without registration, operated ○○○○○ Hospital and operated the instant construction on a total of 21 occasions at △△△ University △△△ Hospital, etc.

나) 피고인 1은 건설업체 인부로 □□□병원에 공사를 하던 인연으로 ○○브레카를 개업하면서 □□□병원에 공사 견적서를 제출한 후 계약이 성사되면 공사를 하였고(증거기록 제1031쪽), 피고인 2는 ▷병원에 자재납품 및 소규모 공사들을 한 인연으로 이 사건 공사들 하게 되었다(증거기록 제1039, 1040쪽).

다) 피고인들은 발주자인 □□ □병원 측과 총 공사기간이나 총 공사대금에 관하여 별도의 약정을 한 바 없으며, 각 공사시마다 발주자인 ▷병원측과 공사발주서와 공사완료확인서를 개별적으로 작성하고 공사대금도 각각의 공사별로 입금 받았을 뿐 따로 전체 공사계약서를 작성하지도 아니하였다(증거기록 제422쪽 내지 511쪽, 제705쪽 내지 894쪽 참조).

3) The above Defendants’ developments leading up to the order of construction and their contents, and the Defendants appears to have received an order for necessary construction from Dog Hospital when operating the unregistered construction business. As a matter of principle, each construction should be deemed to have constituted separate crimes, and it is difficult to view that there exists the identity or continuity of the Defendants’ respective construction works as being subject to comprehensive crimes.

4) Therefore, since each part of the Defendants’ respective construction works is in a relationship of substantive concurrent crimes for separate crimes, the completion of the statute of limitations should be determined at the time of completion of each construction work.

First of all, with respect to Defendant 1, the statute of limitations is three years in accordance with Article 96(1)1 and Article 9(1)1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 249(1)5 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007). The prosecution of this case was filed on Nov. 28, 2007, when three years have elapsed since the expiration of the last construction.

Next, with respect to Defendant 2’s health room and the charges against Defendant 2, the statute of limitations under the statutory penalty of this case is three years for the same reasons as seen earlier, and even based on October 31, 2007, which was the most late point of time during each of the above construction works, the statute of limitations has expired since it is obvious that the public prosecution of this case was filed on December 21, 201, which was three years after the expiration of the said construction works.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes and the statute of limitations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed ex officio as to the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, without examining the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above.

Furthermore, since the court below found the above part of the judgment of the court below guilty against the defendants as a single comprehensive crime and sentenced to a single punishment for the whole part, the whole part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed, and it shall be decided again as follows after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence acknowledged by the court is as follows, except for the revision of the facts constituting the crime against the Defendants, and therefore, it is identical to the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A person who intends to conduct the business of dismantling non-meters or structures shall register the business of dismantling non-meters or structures with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

피고인은 국토해양부장관에게 등록을 하지 아니하고, 2007. 11. 13.경부터 같은 해 12. 28.경까지 위 병원에서 ◁◁관 2층 앞 주택건물 철거 및 잔토정리공사를 공사비 1,150만원에 시공하고, 2007. 12. 18.경부터 2008. 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체, 바닥 철거공사를 공사비 1,700만원에 시공하고, 2008. 1. 19.경부터 같은 해 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체, 바닥, 철거공사를 공사비 2,050만원에 시공하고, 2008. 3. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 천정, 벽체 철거, 집기물 처리공사를 공사비 1,600만원에 시공하는 등 2007. 11. 13.경부터 2008. 3.경까지 4회에 걸쳐 각 비계·구조물해체공사를 시공하여 비계·구조물해체공사업을 각 영위하였다.

1. A person who intends to operate an indoor building business shall register his/her indoor building business with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs;

피고인은 국토해양부장관에게 등록을 하지 아니하고, 2007. 12. 3.경부터 같은 달 31.경까지 위 병원에서벽체 공사를 2,475만원에 시공하고, 2007. 12. 3.경부터 같은 달 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정공사를 공사비 1,595만원에 시공하고, 2007. 12. 18.경부터 2008. 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 공사를 공사비 공사비 1,122만원에 시공하고, 2008. 1. 9.경부터 같은 해 3. 31.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 설치공사를 공사비 1,265만원에 시공하고, 2008. 3. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 벽체 공사를 공사비 1,100만원에 시공하고, 2008. 3. 7.경부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 위 병원에서 천정 공사를 공사비 2,200만원에 시공하고, 2008. 2. 하순경부터 같은 해 4. 중순경까지 위 병원에서 천정 텍스공사를 공사비 22,548,240원에 시공하고, 2010. 4. 1.경부터 같은 달 22.경까지 부산 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 ◎◎◎◎병원에서 천정, 벽체 마감공사를 공사비 1억 3,000만원에 시공하는 등 2007. 12. 3.경부터 2010. 4.경까지 9회에 걸쳐 각 실내건축공사를 시공하여 실내건축공사업을 각 영위하였다.

2. A person who intends to operate a business of assembling roof and board buildings shall register the business of assembling roof and board buildings with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs;

The Defendant did not register with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, from July 14, 2009 to February 24, 2009, performed the construction work of a water treatment room room room in the above insurance policy hospital on a water treatment room in the area of 19.5 million won.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 96(1)1, 9(1), and 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

In full view of the circumstances that the Defendants repeated construction works without registration, and the size and frequency of the construction works are unreasonable, and the Defendants recognized all the crimes of this case and reflects their depth. In the trial, substantial parts of the charges against the Defendants were acquitted, the Defendants’ economic circumstances are difficult, and the Defendants did not have any record of the same kind of crime, and other circumstances that are favorable to the Defendants, including the Defendants’ age, environment, family relationship, occupation, etc., the sentence like the disposition is imposed.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows.

In case of Defendant 1’s acquittal of the facts charged

A person who intends to conduct the business of dismantling non-meters or structures shall register the business of dismantling non-meters or structures with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(8) The Defendant did not register with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, from around April 11, 2006 to May 28, 2006, executed the construction expenses of 1,0450,000 won at △△ University Hospital located in Busan ( Address 1 omitted). ② From around June 3, 2006 to around July 30 of the same year, the removal of walls, ceiling, floor removal construction expenses of the above hospital from around 1,100,000 won and the construction expenses of the above hospital from around 7, 200,000 won to around 1,70,000 won, and from around 7, 200,000 won to the construction expenses of the above hospital from around 1, 205,70,000 won to around 1, 207,000 won to the construction expenses of the above hospital.

In case of Defendant 2’s acquittal of the facts charged

Any person who intends to conduct an indoor construction business shall register his/her indoor construction business with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

(11) Nevertheless, the Defendant, from around April 11, 206 to June 30, 206, performed the above installation work at △ University Hospital from around 10,000 won, with the construction cost of 11 million won from around 10,000 won, from around 10,000 won to around 20,000 won, from around 10,000 won of the above hospital construction cost of the above hospital from around 10,00 won, from around 20,000 won to around 17,000 won of the above construction cost of the above hospital from around 20,000 won, and from around 10,000 won of the above construction cost of the above hospital from around 27, 206 to around 17, 200,000 won of the above construction cost of the building cost of the hospital from around 17, 200 won to around 10,507.

Since the statute of limitations has expired as stated in Article 2-4(d)(4), each part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered in accordance with Article 326(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-soo (Presiding Judge)