건축법위반
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
1. Where the facts constituting the construction of a building with a total floor area of less than 200 square meters in a management area, agricultural and forest area, or natural environment conservation area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and with less than three floors, a building permit shall be deemed granted in advance, if a report is filed with the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, the Special Self-Governing Province branch, or the head of a Si
Nevertheless, on 202, the Defendant had a lessee extend 34m2 and 109m2 in each inside of the above warehouse without filing a report on the factory “A” or “B” located in the Dong-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si and used it in the above state until now.
Accordingly, the defendant constructed a building without reporting to the competent authorities.
2. The statute of limitations begins from the time when the criminal act was completed (Article 252(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The facts charged in this case was completed when the Defendant extended a dumm of the instant factory “A” and “B” on the instant building without reporting the extension thereof in 2002, and did not report the construction thereof until now while using it. Thus, the criminal act was completed when the Defendant extended the dumm of the instant dumm without reporting the extension to the competent administrative agency.
must be viewed.
Therefore, the statute of limitations shall run from that time.
The prosecutor asserts that the crime of violating the Building Act, as long as the owner continues to use the extended building without reporting extension, shall be regarded as the continuous crime until the building is removed.
However, the act of violating the Building Act is different from the act of changing the purpose of use of a building without reporting and its nature, and thus cannot be deemed as a continuous crime. It refers to Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1043 Decided September 25, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2013No583 Decided August 23, 2013, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court.