2016False 620 School Health Act Violation

A

○○ (Acting for Prosecutor, Prosecution, etc.), ○○ (Trial)

Attorney ○○ (Presiding over)

September 22, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the Labor House for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

No person shall commit any act prohibited in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, or install any facility.

Nevertheless, from November 15, 2014 to December 29, 2015, the Defendant sold adult products, such as male self-help schemes, female self-help schemes, and mixed Seas, at a business establishment with a trade name called “○○○○○○○○○” and “○○○○○○” goods located in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Voluntary report;

1. Scenic photographs;

[In light of the fact that there is still a signboard "○○ Personal Goods" at the outside and outside of the building, and there is no symbol to deem that adult goods were displayed at the indoor display site and they were closed, the defendant was engaged in the sales business of adult goods until December 29, 2015. Meanwhile, the witness B and C stated to the purport that they were frequently engaged in training and meeting for shopping mall business at the defendant's store, and that the defendant was unable to engage in the business. However, it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition only by each of the above witnesses' statements, such as the possibility that the defendant could not be ruled out that the business was discontinued only when the defendant was in his/her store.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 19(2) and Article 6(1) of the School Health Act; Article 70(1) and Article 69(2)1 of the Act on the Detention in Labor Station; Article 70(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Labor Station Inmates; Article 69(2)1 of the same Act on the grounds that the counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion on the provisional payment order from November 2014 to June 2015 during the period of the charge is the same as the summary order already punished, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

On November 14, 2014, the record reveals that the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,00 as a violation of the School Health Act at the Seoul Central District Court on January 1, 2015 and issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a result of the violation of the School Health Act. The facts constituting the above summary order and the facts constituting the facts constituting the crime of this case are judged to be in a single comprehensive crime. However, in case where the summary order was issued with respect to a part of the crimes related to a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of the lawsuit shall be rendered against the crime before the issuance of the summary order, but only for the following crimes, the defendant shall be punished for a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1318, Aug. 9, 194), and the above facts constituting the crime of this case shall not be accepted as a separate crime after the issuance of the summary order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1318, Aug. 9, 194).

Judges Cho Jae-sung