Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

From June 12, 2006 to April 19, 2013, the Defendant closed the business after operating a guard company providing facility security, personal protection, etc. with the trade name of “C”, which is a stock company.

On September 17, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for the management services of the said building with the representative E of the said building and from September 23, 2013 to September 25, 2013 without obtaining permission from the commissioner of the district police agency having jurisdiction over the location of the security personnel, capital, facilities, and equipment by specifying security services, while any person who intends to run security services, who intends to operate the said business, entered into a contract with the said representative E of the said building and the said 29 security guards to provide security services.

Accordingly, the defendant runs the security business without obtaining a license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of F;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on internal investigation reports (the attachment of a contract for personal service day) and a copy of a building management contract;

1. Article 28 (2) 1 and Article 4 (1) of the former Act on the Security Services Industry (Amended by Act No. 11872, Jun. 7, 2013);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Defendant and defense counsel asserted that ① hiring of a security guard on a daily basis was a building owner who is not a defendant, ② the security guard’s service is not a security service that constitutes a violation of the Security Services Industry Act through loading, moving, painting work, etc. of goods, not a security service, and ③ Defendant is not a juristic person, and thus, cannot be punished for a violation of the Security Services Industry Act.

B. Therefore, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined as to the argument ①, the Defendant’s work period between September 17, 2013 and September 25, 2014, the entire building is to be in charge.