beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.21 2013고단4920

도로법위반

Text

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person working as the agent for the team branch office D, and a person who intends to build, rebuild, alter, or remove structures, articles, or other facilities within the zone of a road, or to occupy and use roads for other purposes, shall obtain permission from the management agency.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without permission from the management agency around May 7, 2013, installed a large pole at approximately 3 meters between the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and G, and occupied and used the said road without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements (including attached documents) by I;

1. Article 97 subparagraph 3 of the Road Act and Article 38 (1) of the relevant Act on criminal facts;

1. A fine of 1,000,000 won to be imposed on the suspension of sentence;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of suspended sentence;

1. This case is a person in charge of D, and there is a need to newly establish one week in addition to the existing Jeonju as well as the existing Jeonju in the case of moving the previous owner according to the civil petition of the resident. In light of all circumstances, it is difficult to view the defendant's act as one of the grounds for the illegality of illegality as an "act that does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which is one of the grounds for the illegality of the defendant's act, in addition to the road excavation permission, due to the lack of understanding of related laws and regulations and administrative measures.

However, considering the circumstances of the instant case, the fact that the Defendant did not intend to gain private benefits, and that it appears that the state of occupation and use could be resolved by transferring the former occupation and use without permission to private land.