logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.11.28 2014고단3375
동물보호법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 1 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From July 2013 to September 16, 2014, Defendants conspired to operate an animal sales business, without registering to the head of the competent Gu, from the first floor of the building D in Jung-gu Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, the trade name of “E” and the high-sea transportation broker to sell the goods at auction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness FG;

1. Written accusation (No. 14 No. Serials of Evidence list);

1. Application of the law to fact-finding reply

1. Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 46(4)1 and 33(1) of the Animal Protection Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendants of the provisional payment order asserts that the defendants thought that there was no need to register as "animal sales business" in operating "E" as to the application of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In a case where punishment is not imposed under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, it does not mean a simple “legal site,” but is generally an act which constitutes a crime, but in one’s own special case, it is not punishable if there is a justifiable reason in recognizing that his act is not a crime under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. As such, the circumstance that the defendant had knowledge that his act was subject to registration under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes is merely a site of the law, and in particular, it is not a case where the defendant actively perceived that his act was not a crime as permitted under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. Thus, it cannot

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15260, Oct. 13, 2011). According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendants were asked the relevant institution or public official in charge of the operation of the “E” or received administrative guidance with special details.

arrow