A. Whether the penal provisions of each of the penal provisions of this Article apply to the mid-term owners, who are not the mid-term owners, pursuant to Article 36 of the Mid-Term Management Act (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that the representative director who was not directly involved in the management of the company cannot be deemed an offender of the violation of the Act, if the partner is in charge of managing the company during

A. The purport of the provision of Article 36 of the Mid-Term Management Act is to punish both the former and the latter, even if the latter are either a corporation or an individual who is the former and the latter do not directly commit the violation of each of the provisions of this Article, so the latter is also subject to the penal provisions of this Article in respect of the latter, not the former and the latter.

(b) The case holding that if a member is in charge of the management of the company's mid-term period, the representative director who was not directly involved in such management shall not be deemed an offender.

Article 36 of the Mid-Term Management Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Do384 Decided December 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13473) 90Do2597 Decided February 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1121) 91Do801 Decided November 12, 1991 (Gong192, 157)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 92No159 delivered on June 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 33 subparag. 1 and Article 12(1)2 of the Mid-Term Management Act apply to a person who is a mid-term owner. However, Article 36 of the same Act applies to a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation or natural person who commits an act falling under any of Articles 32 through 35 in connection with the business of the corporation or natural person, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation or natural person shall be punished by a fine under each of the Articles. The purpose of this provision is to punish both the former and the latter even if the corporation or individual who is a mid-term owner does not directly commit an act in violation of each of the provisions of this Article is to punish both the former and the latter (Article 33 subparag. 1 and Article 12(1)2 of the same Act). Thus, the penal provisions of each of the preceding Articles apply to a middle-term owner (Article 91Do801, Nov. 12, 191; 200Do3984, Feb. 198, 198).

As duly determined by the court below, the non-indicted 1 corporation is a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and selling concrete products, and more than 30 members work for them. At the time of this case, the management of the vehicles belonging to the above company including the key machine was in charge of management and the management of the vehicles belonging to the non-indicted 2, who are members, and the defendant was not directly involved in the management of the key machine as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the defendant who is the above representative director of the company cannot be deemed an actor of the violation of the mid-Term Management Act, so it is just for the court below to find the defendant not guilty of the defendant in the same purport, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.