[건축법위반][공2001.1.15.(122),207]
Criteria for determining whether a false report on construction supervision prepared and submitted by a construction supervisor is prepared and submitted;
Pursuant to Article 21 (5) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 1999), an interim report on construction supervision prepared and submitted by a construction supervisor is not required to state the contractor. The "conformity with the Acts and subordinate statutes" or "supervision opinion" of each of the above reports is not required to state the contractor's opinion, and Article 2 (1) 15 of the same Act and Article 19 (6) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199) and Article 19-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1899 of May 11, 199), and it does not require the construction supervisor to state his opinion or judgment as a result of performing the primary construction supervision duties, and it does not require the construction supervisor to state his opinion or opinion of the construction supervisor with respect to all other related Acts and subordinate statutes discovered in the course of supervising the construction.
Article 2 (1) 15, Article 21 (5), Article 79 (3) 5 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199), Article 19 (6) 3 of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16284 of Apr. 30, 199), Article 19-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 189 of May 11, 199)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Seoul District Court Decision 99No11857 delivered on March 22, 2000
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 21 (5) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 5895 of Feb. 8, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") does not require the construction supervisor to enter the interim report and the report on supervision which is prepared and submitted by the construction supervisor under paragraph (5) of Article 21 of the same Act, and each of the above reports "whether it is in conformity with the Acts and subordinate statutes" or "supervision opinion" shall include the opinion or decision of the construction supervisor as a result of the execution of the primary construction supervision duties under Article 2 (1) 15 of the Act, Article 19 (6) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 19-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it shall not require the construction supervisor to enter the decision or opinion of the construction supervisor on the existence of any violation of the Building Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes, which
In the same purport, the court below held that even though the defendant stated the contractor as a comprehensive human resources construction company differently from the fact in the construction supervision report, it shall not be deemed that the contents of the construction supervision were falsely stated as intended to specify the construction subject to supervision, and that the statement in the supervision opinion column of the construction supervision report is legitimate with respect to the matters belonging to the original duties of the construction supervisor in accordance with the above provisions, it is reasonable to maintain the court of first instance that acquitted the contractor of the facts charged in violation of the Building Act, which was made by the false preparation of the construction supervision report, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the duties of the construction supervisor
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)