logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.05.15 2018고정89
축산물위생관리법위반
Text

This case shall not be under the jurisdiction of the court.

Reasons

1. The Defendant did not report to the competent authority on the facts charged, and collected and sold approximately KRW 380,000 Hens' eggs (11,400) from November 2016 to June 2017, at the place of business, etc. located in Daegu Seo-gu C, Daegu, and with the trade name of "D," about KRW 380,00,000, to the extent of KRW 1710,00.

2. Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The land jurisdiction shall be the place of crime, the address, the domicile, and the present place of residence of the defendant, or the present place.” According to the records, there is no evidence to prove that even one of the crime places of this case, the defendant’s domicile, the domicile, or the present place is within the jurisdiction of the land of this court. Thus, this case does not fall

In addition, Article 320(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the court shall not declare any violation of jurisdiction over the land jurisdiction without a defendant's request," and Article 320(2) of the same Act provides that "the defendant shall make a request for violation of jurisdiction before the defendant makes a statement on the case." The defendant filed an application for a declaration of violation of jurisdiction through his/her defense counsel before he/she makes a statement on the case (the counsel's opinion on April 13, 2018). Meanwhile, Article 8(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where the defendant is not present within his/her jurisdiction, the court may transfer the case by decision to the Dong-class court having jurisdiction over the present status of the defendant if there are special circumstances," and it is interpreted that the court having jurisdiction over the original defendant may transfer the case to the Dong-class court having jurisdiction over the present status of the defendant, so it cannot be applicable to this case without the jurisdiction of the court.

3. According to the conclusion, a sentence of violation of jurisdiction shall be rendered in accordance with Article 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow