beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.08.08 2018노1143

체육시설의설치ㆍ이용에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, told the Defendant that the representative meeting of the occupants of the DNA apartment could run a business other than the occupants of the apartment complex at the time of the bid at the EF center in the said apartment (hereinafter “instant sports facilities”), the Defendant responded to the instant sports facilities tender.

After bidding, the Defendant became aware of the obligation to report the sports facility business, and reported several times, but the instant sports facility was returned to the Defendant’s facility that could not report the sports facility business as an apartment resident welfare facility.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case that the above tenant representative meeting was conducting sports facility business without reporting the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of KRW 500,000)

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

As to this, the lower court, based on the legal principles and circumstances stated in its reasoning, i.e., the relationship that the instant sports facility is a common facility for residents under the Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act and cannot be reported for profit-making purposes, cannot be said to be exempt from reporting to the Defendant solely on such circumstance, and there is a aspect that the resident representative meeting encourages the Defendant to operate sports facility

Even if there is no reason to exempt the criminal liability of the defendant who directly engaged in sports facility business without reporting, all of the facts charged in the instant case was found guilty.

The defendant could operate sports facility business for the purpose of profit-making at the beginning, although the defendant could do so.

I think about the instant sports facilities.