logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.09.26 2019노913
건설산업기본법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A did not have had Defendant A receive a supply of and demand for construction work using the name of his own C Co., Ltd. and executed the construction work.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts is merely a supply of and construction by an employee of the C Co., Ltd. to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”), and there was no supply of and demand for the said construction and construction from Defendant A by lending the name of the C Co., Ltd.). (2) The sentence (7 million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 5 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 7 million won) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the part of the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the said judgment of the lower court is justifiable and acceptable, and contrary to its reasoning, the lower court did not seem to have erred by mistake

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants denied the crime of this case, the name of the construction business may cause defective construction, and the actual defect in the construction work of this case is disadvantageously unfavorable, while the Defendants are not subject to punishment for the same kind of crime.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the Defendants to commit the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court to Defendant B is too heavy, or the sentence imposed to the Defendants is too harsh.

arrow