logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.11.01 2016고단2284
건설산업기본법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A Co., Ltd. (Representative C) is a corporation established for the purpose of construction business, and a constructor who has registered construction business.

A constructor shall assign at least one construction engineer at a construction site of at least 500 million won in the predetermined cost for the execution management of construction works and other technical management, and may assign one construction engineer at three construction sites with the consent of the project owner when performing the same kind of construction works at the neighboring construction site of less than 500 million won in the predetermined cost.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, from June 2014 to July 1 of the same month, posted five construction technicians to three construction sites without the consent of the ordering person, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, without the consent of the ordering person, or assigned five construction technicians to construction sites more than KRW 500 million in advance.

2. Determination:

A. In Article 40(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, one or more construction engineers are “contractor”. According to the records of this case, a constructor who has completed the construction business registration is Defendant A Co., Ltd., and the Defendant, a corporation, is merely a subject of judicial duties with respect to Article 40(1) and is not capable of committing a crime unless otherwise expressly provided in law. Thus, the Defendant cannot be punished pursuant to Article 97 subparag. 4 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

B. In such a case, the defendant's business is bound to be realized by the representative's decision-making process of the representative who is a natural person representing the defendant. Thus, if there are both punishment provisions for a representative who is not a juristic person, an actor who is not a constructor may also be subject to the above penal provisions for the constructor. However, the two penal provisions under Article 98 of the Framework Act on Construction Industry are stipulated in Article 97 subparagraph 4 of the same Act.

arrow