Shandong Provincial High Court (20 19) Case No.66 of Lu Punishment is a bit long, so it needs to be read patiently. If you are really impatient, then I can simply say that the application of the principle of non bis in idem should be based on the same fact and reason. In other words, the punishment for an illegal act is based on the same fact+the same reason (both elements are indispensable) and can only be punished once.
First of all, the referee points:
Article 24 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "a party shall not be given an administrative penalty of more than two fines for the same illegal act." This article provides for the principle of non-punishment for one thing related to administrative punishment. Non-punishment for one thing is one of the important principles of administrative punishment, which means that one party shall not be fined more than twice at the same time for the same illegal fact and reason. The same fact and the same reason are the same elements of the principle of no longer punishing one thing, and both are indispensable. The same fact refers to the same illegal act, that is, from its constituent elements, it conforms to the characteristics of an illegal act. The same reason means the same legal basis.
Second, the judgment documents:
Shandong Higher People's Court
the administrative ruling
(20 19) Luxingzai No.66
Applicant for retrial (defendant in the first instance and appellant in the second instance): Huaiyin District People's Government of Jinan City, whose domicile is No.29851Shi Jing West Road, Jinan City.
Legal Representative: Zhu Yuming, district head.
Authorized Agent: Yan Feng, lawyer.
The applicant for retrial (defendant in the first instance and appellant in the second instance) is Huaiyin District Emergency Management Bureau of Jinan City (formerly Huaiyin District Safety Production Supervision Bureau of Jinan City), and his domicile is No.29851Shi Jing West Road, Jinan City.
Legal Representative: Hao Lu, director.
Authorized Agent: Zhou, lawyer of Shandong Huameng Law Firm.
Entrusted agent Shao Xuan, intern lawyer of Shandong Huameng Law Firm.
Respondent (plaintiff in the first instance and appellee in the second instance): Jinan Lianhua Henderson Economic and Trade Co., Ltd., located at Room 303, West Building, No.50 Heping Road, Lixia District, Jinan City.
Legal Representative: Wang Moumou, general manager.
The applicants for retrial, Huaiyin District People's Government of Jinan City (hereinafter referred to as Huaiyin District Government) and Huaiyin District Emergency Management Bureau of Jinan City (formerly Huaiyin District Safety Supervision Bureau of Jinan City, hereinafter referred to as Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau), refused to accept Jinan Intermediate People's Court (20 18) Lu 0 1 due to disputes with the respondent, Jinan Lianhua Henderson Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lianhua Henderson Company). Our hospital made an administrative ruling of (20 19) Lu Zi No.758 on October 8th, 20 19, and ruled that this case was remanded by our hospital. According to the law, our court formed a collegial panel composed of Judge Hou Yong, Judge Li Zhuo and Judge Li Lijun, and reviewed the case, which has now ended.
The court of first instance found that since March 6, 20 13, Wang Moumou, the head of Lianhua Henderson Company, leased No.4 Fanjiazhuang South Road 14, Huaiyin District, Jinan City to produce concrete water reducing agent, and hired Gao Moumou to manage the company for production. Wang Moumou and Gao Moumou deliberately concealed the fact that dangerous chemicals such as acetone and formaldehyde were used in raw material production, and failed to train and educate employees according to the requirements of laws and regulations, resulting in chaotic safety management. During the production period, Wang purchased untested equipment, and the production devices were not designed, constructed and installed by relevant qualified units, and the safety production conditions were not improved as required. 201165438+1At 9: 27 on October 29, an explosion and fire broke out in the courtyard of Lianhua Henderson Company, and the explosives landed on the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed rail line, causing damage, tripping and power failure of the power supply equipment of the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed rail line. The outer body of the G 176 train was bruised in many places, some power supply equipment was damaged, and the two-way traffic of the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed rail line was interrupted for 2 hours and 34 minutes. As a result, 26 high-speed trains such as G 107 and G55 from Dezhou East to Jinan West stopped for 3,455 minutes, resulting in the suspension of 6/KLOC-0 high-speed trains such as Shanghai Hongqiao to Beijing South and Beijing South to Hefei South G267, and a large number of passengers were stranded. After the accident, the "1 1.29" general explosion accident investigation team of Lianhua Henderson Company was established under the leadership of Jinan Safety Supervision Bureau, and the "1/.29" general explosion accident investigation report of Jinan Lianhua Henderson Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the accident investigation report) was formed, which identified the direct economy caused by the accident. After that, the Jinan Municipal People's Government made the Reply of Jinan Municipal People's Government on the Investigation Report of Jinan Lianhua Henderson Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. "1 1.29" (hereinafter referred to as the Reply of the Municipal Government), and agreed with the qualitative analysis, prevention and rectification opinions, personnel and units responsible for the accident in the accident investigation report. Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau made an administrative punishment decision on the production accident involved, which was later revoked by the administrative reconsideration decision made by Huaiyin District Government. Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau reopened the case on June 9, 2065438, and delivered the Notice of Administrative Punishment and the Notice of Hearing to Lianhua Henderson Company on the same day. On August 9th, 20 17, Lianhua Henderson Company was informed to hold a hearing, and a hearing was held on August 6th, 2065438. On August 23, 20 17, the notice of administrative punishment was delivered for the second time, and on August 23, 20 17, the administrative punishment decision [2017] No.0619 was made (hereinafter referred to as administrative punishment No.0619)
Lianhua Henderson Company refused to accept the administrative penalty decision made by Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau and filed an application for administrative reconsideration with Huaiyin District Government on 20 17123. Huaiyin District Government received an application for administrative reconsideration from Lianhua Henderson Company on 20 17123 October, and made a notice of application for administrative reconsideration on 10/26 October, which was accepted on12 October/65438. The administrative reconsideration decision was made on 20 18 and 65438+ 10/24 (hereinafter referred to as 172). Lianhua Henderson Company refused to accept the administrative reconsideration decision and filed an administrative lawsuit.
It is also found out that on February 2, 2065438, Shanghai Railway Supervision Bureau made a decision on railway administrative punishment for the production accident of Lianhua Henderson Company [2016] No.55 (hereinafter referred to as the decision on railway punishment), the main content of which was: 20 165438. Due to your company's failure to take safety precautions, the fragments of equipment and components such as the stirring teeth of the reaction kettle caused by the explosion fell to the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway 400 kilometers and 50 meters away, invaded the railway building clearance, hit the railway traction power supply network, and scraped with the G 176 high-speed train, causing damage to the traction power supply, high-speed train, lines and other equipment and facilities, and interrupting the two-way traffic of the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway for 2 hours.34 The above behavior violated the provisions of Article 32 of the Regulations on Railway Safety Management. According to Item (3) of Article 26 of the Regulations on Railway Safety Management and the Measures for the Implementation of Violation of Administrative Punishment, it was decided to order it to make corrections and impose a fine of 199000 yuan.
Once again, it was found that the Huaiyin District People's Procuratorate of Jinan accused Wang Moumou and Gao Moumou of committing the crime of major liability accident with indictmentNo. [20 17]324, and filed a public prosecution with Huaiyin District People's Court on September 22, 20 17. During the litigation, the plaintiff of incidental civil action, China Railway Jinan Bureau Group Co., Ltd., filed an incidental civil action. After hearing the case, Huaiyin District People's Court made a criminal incidental civil judgment of (20 17) Lu 0 104 on March 28, 2065438, and found out the process, causes and consequences of the production accident involved, and found that the production accident involved directly lost 394798 yuan, and was sentenced to Wang Moumou and Gao Moumou for committing a major liability accident.
The court of first instance held that Article 9 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Work Safety stipulates: "The supervision and administration department of work safety in the State Council shall implement comprehensive supervision and administration of work safety throughout the country in accordance with this Law; The safety production supervision and administration department of the local people's government at or above the county level shall, in accordance with this Law, implement comprehensive supervision and administration of safety production within its administrative area. " Article 32 of the Regulations on Reporting, Investigation and Handling of Production Safety Accidents (the State Council Order No.493) stipulates: "The people's government responsible for accident investigation shall give a reply within 15 days from the date of receiving the accident investigation report; For particularly serious accidents, a reply shall be made within 30 days. Under special circumstances, the reply time may be appropriately extended, but the longest extension time shall not exceed 30 days. With the approval of the people's government and in accordance with the authority and procedures prescribed by laws and administrative regulations, the relevant authorities shall impose administrative penalties on the accident unit and relevant personnel, and impose sanctions on the state staff responsible for the accident. " In this case, the case of Lianhua Henderson Company involved a production accident, which took place in Huaiyin District. Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau, as the comprehensive supervision and management department of production safety within the administrative area of Huaiyin District, has the main qualification to make the decision of administrative punishment in this case.
Article 25 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Safety in Production stipulates: "Production and business operation entities shall conduct education and training on safety in production for employees, so as to ensure that employees have the necessary knowledge of safety in production, be familiar with relevant rules and regulations on safety in production and safe operation procedures, master the safety operation skills of their posts, understand emergency measures for accidents, and know their rights and obligations in safety in production. Employees who have not passed the safety production education and training are not allowed to work at their posts. " Article 41 stipulates: "A production and business operation entity shall educate and urge its employees to strictly implement its own rules and regulations on production safety and safe operation procedures; And truthfully inform employees of the risk factors, preventive measures and accident emergency measures in workplaces and jobs. " The first paragraph of Article 109 stipulates: "In the event of a production safety accident, the responsible production and business operation entity shall be required to bear corresponding responsibilities such as compensation according to law, and the safety production supervision and management department shall impose a fine in accordance with the following provisions: (1) In the event of a general accident, A fine of not less than 200,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan ..... "Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Regulations on Reporting, Investigation and Handling of Production Safety Accidents stipulates:" According to the casualties or direct economic losses caused by production safety accidents (hereinafter referred to as accidents), accidents are generally divided into the following grades: ... (4) Ordinary accidents mean that less than three people are killed, or 10 people are seriously injured, or/. The case of Lianhua Henderson Company involved a production accident, partly because the company failed to train and educate its employees according to the requirements of laws and regulations, and the safety management was chaotic. Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau determined in its administrative punishment decision that Lianhua Henderson Company violated the provisions of Articles 25 and 41 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Work Safety, and complied with the provisions of the above-mentioned laws. The production accident has been identified by Huaiyin District People's Court (20 17) Lu 0 104 Criminal Adjoining Civil Judgment No.328, resulting in direct economic loss of 394,798 yuan. Lianhua Henderson Company shall accept the administrative penalty of fine in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 109 above. However, before Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau made the decision on administrative punishment, Shanghai Railway Supervision Bureau made a decision on No.55 railway punishment for the same production accident of Lianhua Henderson Company on February 2065438+2 1 2007, and decided to order it to be corrected and impose a fine of199,000 yuan. According to the provisions of Article 24 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, the administrative penalty for imposing a fine on the same illegal act of the party concerned shall not exceed two times, while the administrative penalty for the production accident involved by Lianhua Henderson Company can only be imposed once. Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau knew that Shanghai Railway Supervision Bureau had made the above-mentioned administrative penalty decision to give Lianhua Henderson Company a fine, but it did not review and confirm the illegal acts and consequences and punishment results targeted by the punishment, and made another administrative penalty decision involving a fine, which violated the provisions of Article 24 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China, violated legal procedures and applied legal errors. At the same time, the administrative punishment decision of Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau was based on the economic loss of 9.498 million yuan identified in the accident investigation report, but no other evidence was provided to support the identification result, which was greatly different from the direct loss of 394,798 yuan identified in the criminal incidental civil judgment of Huaiyin District People's Court (20 17) Lu 0 104, so Huaiyin District People's Court.
Article 12 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "If an applicant refuses to accept the specific administrative act of the working department of a local people's government at or above the county level, he may choose to apply for administrative reconsideration to the people's government at the same level or the competent department at the next higher level." In this case, Lianhua Henderson Company refused to accept the administrative punishment decision made by Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau and applied for administrative reconsideration. Huaiyin District Government, as the people's government at the same level of Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau, has the qualification of administrative subject to make reconsideration decisionNo.. 172.
The first paragraph of Article 28 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The institution in charge of legal affairs of the administrative reconsideration organ shall review the specific administrative act made by the respondent and put forward opinions. After the consent of the person in charge of the administrative reconsideration organ or collective discussion, Make an administrative reconsideration decision according to the following provisions: If ....................................................................................... decides to cancel or confirm that a specific administrative act is illegal, it may order the respondent to re-do the specific administrative act within a certain period of time: 1. The main facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient; 2. The application basis is wrong; 3. Violation of legal procedures; 4. Exceeding or abusing power; 5. The specific administrative act is obviously improper. " In this case, the main facts of the administrative punishment decision made by Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, the applicable law is wrong, the legal procedure is violated, and the punishment result is obviously inappropriate. Huaiyin District Government shall, after accepting and reviewing the application for administrative reconsideration of Lianhua Henderson Company, revoke the administrative penalty decision in accordance with the above-mentioned laws and regulations. However, the administrative reconsideration decision made by Huaiyin District Government failed to examine the amount of losses identified in the indictmentNo. [20 17]324 of Huaiyin District People's Procuratorate of Jinan submitted by Lianhua Henderson Company and the fact that the Shanghai Railway Supervision Bureau imposed a fine. It believes that the administrative punishment decision made by Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau is legal and not improper, and decides to maintain the administrative punishment decision of Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau, and finds that the factual evidence is insufficient, which violates the above-mentioned legal provisions.
To sum up, the administrative punishment decision made by Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau is obviously inappropriate because the main evidence for ascertaining the facts is insufficient, the applicable law is wrong, and the legal procedures are violated. The main evidence for ascertaining the facts made by Huaiyin District Government is insufficient and should be revoked according to law. Lianhua Henderson Company's request to cancel the administrative reconsideration decision and the administrative penalty decision is in compliance with the law and should be supported. According to items (1), (2), (3) and (6) of Article 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: 1 Cancel the administrative penalty decision No.06 19 made by Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau on August 23rd, 20th17th. 2. Revoke the reconsideration decision. 172 Jinan Huaiyin district people's government made it on 20 18124 October.
Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau and Huaiyin District Government appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance.
The second-instance judgment of Jinan Intermediate People's Court held that Article 24 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China stipulated: "No administrative penalty of more than two fines shall be imposed on the same illegal act of the parties." In this case, the Shanghai Railway Supervision Administration made the No.55 railway penalty decision on February 2 1 2065438, which stated: "It is now found that on February 201KLOC-0/654381October 29, the No.3 reactor in the production workshop of Huaiyin District, Jinan City, your company (. Fragments of equipment and components such as stirring teeth in the reaction kettle caused by the explosion fell to the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway 400 kilometers and 50 meters away, invaded the railway gauge, hit the railway traction power supply network, and scraped with the G176th high-speed train, causing damage to traction power supply, high-speed trains, lines and other equipment and facilities, interrupting the two-lane operation of the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed railway for 2 hours and 34 minutes ....... According to Article 90 of the Regulations on Railway Safety Management and Violation of Administrative Punishment, ......。 "Huaiyin County Administration of Work Safety issued the number 06 19 on August 23, 2007, which stated:" ... 20165438 At about 9: 30 on October 29, 2006+10, an explosion accident occurred in your company, causing Beijing and Shanghai. ..... The above facts violated the provisions of Articles 25 and 41 of the Law on Work Safety in People's Republic of China (PRC), and according to the provisions of Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Law on Work Safety in People's Republic of China (PRC), it was decided to give an administrative penalty of RMB 450,000 only. " It can be seen from the contents stated in the above-mentioned administrative punishment decision that although the two administrative punishment decisions are not exactly the same in terms of the expression of illegal facts and the application of laws and regulations, the illegal facts identified in the two punishments are based on the "1 1.29" explosion accident and its harmful consequences, and both decisions are fined. The appellant Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau claimed that the reason for its punishment to the appellee Lianhua Henderson Company was "failure to provide safety education to employees as required, which led to the occurrence of production safety accidents", but it did not identify the above-mentioned illegal facts of the appellee Lianhua Henderson Company in the Administrative Punishment Decision No.2004. 06 19, so the court of first instance did not recognize this claim of the appellant Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau. Accordingly, Shanghai Railway Supervision Administration imposed an administrative penalty of RMB 1 199000 on the appellee Lianhua Henderson Company for its illegal act of causing "1 1.29" explosion on February 29, 2007. On August 23, 20 17, the appellant Huaiyin safety supervision bureau imposed an administrative penalty of 450,000 yuan for the same illegal act, which violated the provisions of Article 24 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China and did not conform to the principle of "no punishment for one thing" in administrative punishment. The court of first instance found that the penalty decision procedure No.0619 made by the appellant Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau was seriously illegal and should be revoked. According to the first paragraph of Article 136 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Application, "If the people's court makes a judgment on the original administrative act, it shall also make a judgment on the reconsideration decision". The appellant Huaiyin District Government made decisionNo. 172 to maintain the punishment. Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau 06 19 was revoked together. To sum up, the original judgment of first instance found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct and should be maintained. In accordance with the provisions of Article 86 and Article 89 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
Huaiyin District Government and Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau refused to accept the judgment of the court of first instance, and applied to our court for retrial, claiming that the main evidence of the facts determined in the judgment of first instance was insufficient, and the existing evidence could not prove the direct economic loss of 394,798 yuan, so the direct economic loss of 9.498 million yuan identified in the accident investigation report should be taken as the standard of administrative punishment. The court of first instance made a mistake in applying the law. Lianhua Henderson Company committed two illegal acts in this case. The administrative punishment decision involved in the case is not aimed at the same illegal act, and the punishment basis is different from that made by Shanghai Railway Supervision Administration. In accordance with the provisions of Item (3) and Item (4) of Article 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, request to cancel the original judgment and revise the judgment according to law.
The court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the facts identified in the decision on administrative punishment involved and the applicable law are correct. Article 24 of the Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "a party shall not be given an administrative penalty of more than two fines for the same illegal act." This article provides for the principle of non-punishment for one thing related to administrative punishment. Non-punishment for one thing is one of the important principles of administrative punishment, which means that one party shall not be fined more than twice at the same time for the same illegal fact and reason. The same fact and the same reason are the same elements of the principle of no longer punishing one thing, and both are indispensable. The same fact refers to the same illegal act, that is, from its constituent elements, it conforms to the characteristics of an illegal act. The same reason means the same legal basis. Specifically, in this case, Shanghai Railway Supervision Bureau made a penalty decision for No.55 railway because Lianhua Henderson Company violated the provisions of Article 32 of the Regulations on Railway Safety Management, and according to Article 90 of the Regulations on Railway Safety Management and Item (3) of Article 26 of the Measures for the Implementation of Violation of Administrative Punishment. Huaiyin safety supervision bureau made theno. punishment decision. 06 19 According to the provisions of Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Law on Work Safety in People's Republic of China (PRC), because Lianhua Henderson Company violated the provisions of Articles 25 and 41 of the Law on Work Safety in People's Republic of China (PRC), the No.55 Railway Penalty Decision was made against Lianhua Henderson Company's violation of "buildings, structures, equipment, etc." in the railway line safety protection zone and its adjacent areas. It is not allowed to enter the railway building clearance stipulated by the state, and the penalty decision No.0619 is aimed at Lianhua Henderson Company's violation that "production and business units should educate and train employees in safety production to ensure that employees have the necessary knowledge of safety production. Familiar with relevant safety production rules and regulations and safety operation procedures, master the safety operation skills of this position, understand the emergency treatment measures of accidents, and know your rights and obligations in safety production. Employees who have not passed the safety education and training shall not work at their posts "and" production and business units shall educate and urge employees to strictly implement the safety production rules and regulations and safety operation procedures of their own units; And truthfully inform employees of the risk factors, preventive measures and emergency measures in the workplace and post. The two have different illegal acts and different legal basis for punishment, so they do not violate the provisions of the above laws. The court of first instance found that the punishment decision involved in the case violated the principle of "no more punishment for one thing", which was an unclear fact and an error in the application of law and should be corrected.
After the accident involved, Jinan City Safety Supervision Bureau set up Lianhua Henderson Company's "1 1.29" general explosion accident investigation team, formed an accident investigation report, and determined that the accident caused direct economic losses of 9.498 million yuan. After the Jinan Municipal People's Government made the "Reply of the Municipal Government", it agreed to the qualitative analysis, prevention and rectification opinions of the accident in the accident investigation report, and the suggestions on the handling of the person and unit responsible for the accident. The first paragraph of Article 109 of the Law on Work Safety of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "in the event of a production safety accident, the responsible production and business operation entity shall be required to bear corresponding responsibilities such as compensation according to law, and the supervision and administration department of production safety shall impose a fine according to the following provisions: (1) In the event of an ordinary accident, a fine of more than 200,000 yuan but less than 500,000 yuan shall be imposed ..." The first paragraph of Article 3 of the Regulations on Reporting, Investigation and Handling of Production Safety Accidents stipulates that, "According to the casualties or direct economic losses caused by production safety accidents (hereinafter referred to as accidents), accidents are generally divided into the following grades: ..... (4) General accidents refer to accidents that cause less than three deaths, or 10 people are seriously injured, or direct economic losses of less than 10 million yuan." Therefore, Huaiyin Safety Supervision Bureau found that Lianhua Henderson Company's behavior violated the provisions of Articles 25 and 41 of the Law on Work Safety in People's Republic of China (PRC), and made a penalty decision of 06 19 according to the provisions of Item (1) of the first paragraph of Article 109 of the Law on Work Safety in People's Republic of China (PRC), and fined Lianhua Henderson Company 450,000 yuan, which was in line with the law. Lianhua Henderson Company's claim has no factual and legal basis and should not be supported. The reconsideration decision made by Huaiyin District Government is to maintain the administrative penalty decisionNo. 172. 06 19 handled according to law. The facts are clear, the applicable laws are correct, and the procedures are legal, which should also be maintained. The court of first instance's cancellation of the reconsideration decisionNo. 172 is also inappropriate and should be corrected together. The reasons for retrial applicants to apply for retrial are established and should be supported. According to Article 69 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 122 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Application, the judgment is as follows:
1. Revoke the administrative judgment of Jinan Intermediate People's Court (20 18) Lu 0 1 Hang 792;
Second, cancel the administrative judgment of Huaiyin District People's Court of Jinan City (20 18) Lu 0 104 line No.24 at the beginning;
Three. Reject the claim of Jinan Lianhua Henderson Economic & Trade Co., Ltd. ..
The acceptance fee for the first and second instance cases shall be RMB 50 yuan, which shall be borne by Jinan Lianhua Henderson Economic and Trade Co., Ltd.