logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2017.05.25 2017고정368
공중위생관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to operate a public sanitary management business shall be equipped with various facilities and equipment prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare for each public sanitary business and shall report it to the head of the competent Gu.

Nevertheless, on August 17, 2016, the Defendant operated the so-called 'S and D' 'S and D' 'S' on around 19:45, Busan-gu B and 4, without reporting to the head of Busan-gu Office, and operated the so-called 'S and D' 'S and D' 'S' 'S and 'S and D' 'S' 'S and 'S and D' 'S' 'S and 'S and D' 'S and 'S and D' 'S' 'S and 'S and D' 'S and 1.0,000 won 's 10,000 won 'S and 1.20,000 won 's 's 1.2 billion' 'S' 'S' 'S and 's 's 's 's '.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A report on the control of a business place;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site resignation, mailmark, product price list, and internal photographs of business concerns;

1. Relevant Article 20 (1) 1 and the former part of Article 3 (1) of the Public Health Control Act and the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is merely merely that the act recorded in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment is against the customer who purchased cosmetics for the purpose of test, and it does not constitute “ beauty and beauty business” under the relevant statutes.

The argument is asserted.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant does not simply give the above product to the customer who purchased the "S and Drick" product for the purpose of test, but rather, it appears that receiving the price for giving the above product to the customer within the above business place is the main business of the defendant.

arrow