logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017고정921
식품위생법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Fact-finding] On July 9, 1975, the water source protection area of the Yongsan Dam located on the Choyang-si in Namyang-si in Gyeonggi-do is located as a selling water source to supply clean water to approximately twenty five million citizens in the Seoul Metropolitan area as a water source protection area under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act.

In order to protect the water quality of the water source protection zone, the development is extremely limited, and new restaurants cannot enter. With the development of traffic between recent 20 years, the number of floating population in order to view natural landscape, such as diversified sites, water pumping ecological parks, and Round mountain, has increased rapidly, and the number of unregistered restaurants began to increase rapidly by residents and out-of-the-spots.

The owners of the above restaurants have used the circumstances in which new restaurants could not enter, raising a lot of profits by operating them exclusively, reducing the size of business to avoid heavy punishment, and continuously operated illegal restaurants in the name of another person, such as family members and branch members, while being punished for minor punishment under the name of another person.

[Criminal facts] In order to operate a resting restaurant business, anyone must report the business in accordance with the Food Sanitation Act to the competent authorities.

From August 2015 to October 18, 2016, the Defendant provided a cooking facility in a space of approximately eight square meters in the name of “E” from Namyang-si, Nam-si, a water source protection area, and operated a restaurant with the sales of coffee, hamba, etc. after cooking and selling coffee, hamba, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Investigation report (the result of verifying the system for regulation on use of E-Construction Land);

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing status photographs;

1. Article 97 of the relevant Act and Articles 97 subparagraph 1 and 37 (4) of the Food Sanitation Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is as follows.

arrow