logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
전주지방법원 2017.12.20 2017고단1376
전기공사업법위반
Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the above defendant does not pay the fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person running a limited company B in Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, a limited company B is a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant C is a person running a manufacturing company F in Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Jeonju-si.

1. No defendant A constructor shall have another person receive or execute electrical construction by using his/her name or trade name;

Nevertheless, at the above B office around July 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract in the name of a limited company B with respect to the electrical ship, control tower installation work, which requires a license for electrical construction business in relation to the electrical construction project from the schools of all levels that he received from C, and accepted it as a “refluent money” in the name of a nominal lending fee.

Accordingly, on August 12, 2016, the Defendant, under the name of the above limited company B, had C, not electrical construction business operators, execute the electrical distribution line of a sports hall with G middle school and construction cost of KRW 4,202,00. From that time to December 29, 2016, the Defendant had C perform electrical construction equivalent to KRW 33,495,000, which was awarded in the name of the limited company B in total six times, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed an act of violation as set forth in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business at the same time and place as set forth in paragraph (1).

3. Although Defendant C was prohibited from executing any electrical construction by lending the name of the electrical construction business owner, Defendant C was offered with the intention of paying the amount equivalent to 4% of the amount of the electrical construction contract to A as an “refluence” in the name of the limited company B as stated in paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the Defendant around August 12, 2016.

arrow