건축법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who has built a temporary building for the purpose of office using a container.
Where a temporary building prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is to be constructed, the relevant report shall be made to the competent authority in advance pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.
However, on May 4, 2013, the Defendant, without filing any report, built a temporary building of a size of 36 square meters using containers for the purpose of office in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. A written accusation;
1. Application of statutes on site photographs;
1. Article 111 Subparag. 1 and Article 20(2) of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014) on criminal facts
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not know that the Defendant should report the establishment of the instant container to the competent authority separately. Rather, the lessor of the instant leased site knew that the procedure was completed normally, and thus, did not have any awareness of intention or illegality.
However, according to the records of this case, although all matters pertaining to the permission to use the leased site of this case as the vehicle storage are stipulated to be responsible for the lessee, the defendant can be found to have installed the container without permission without permission without examining at all the head of the competent local government on the matters related to the permission. Thus, the defendant did not have intention to violate the Building Act
It is difficult to deem that there is no perception of illegality or illegality.
Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.