[항소기각에대한재항고][공2001.3.15.(126),577]
[1] Where a person who has obtained permission to implement a park project under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act intends to perform an act falling under Article 23 of the same Act beyond the scope of a park project for which permission was granted, whether permission should be separately obtained under Article 23 of the same Act (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that where a person permitted to implement a park project built a facility other than the permitted facility and occupied and used the park, it constitutes a violation of Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the former Natural Parks Act and Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act
[1] Even where a person who obtained permission to implement a park project under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997) installs a facility at a place where permission was granted, if such act exceeds the scope of a park project and constitutes an act listed in Article 23 of the same Act, permission under Article 23 of the same Act shall be separately obtained.
[2] The case holding that where a person who obtained permission to implement a park project occupies and uses a park by installing a facility other than the permitted facility, it constitutes a violation of Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the former Natural Parks Act and Article 23 (1) of the former Natural Parks Act
[1] Articles 22 and 23 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997) / [2] Articles 22, 23(1)1 and 11 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997), subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 16-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16057 of Dec. 31, 1998)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do440 decided Jun. 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 900)
Re-appellant
Cheongju District Court Order 99No420 dated September 17, 1999
The reappeal is dismissed.
The court of first instance acknowledged that the re-appellant did not obtain permission and used a park by installing facilities, such as steel pipes, etc., on the side of the existing building site for facilities located in the natural environment district in the Hansan National Park in Busan National Park, and sentenced the re-appellant to a fine pursuant to Article 57 subparagraph 2 of the Natural Parks Act and Article 23 (1) of the Natural Parks Act. The Re-Appellant appealed appeal against this, the court below rejected the judgment of the court of first instance based on the judgment that the re-appellant was notified of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification and submitted the statement of reasons for appeal after 20 days from the date the re-appellant did not include the facilities of this case, such as one stop and one toilet, etc., and therefore the re-appellant did not obtain comprehensive permission to occupy and use the land of this case within the scope for the use of a park project, and that the installation of facilities of this case does not cause any damage to public use of a park project other than a park project within the area stipulated in Article 23 (1) of the Natural Parks Act.
Even where a person who has obtained permission to implement a park project under Article 22 of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Act No. 5461 of Dec. 17, 1997), if the act exceeds the scope of the park project permitted and constitutes an act listed in Article 23 of the Act, the permission under Article 23 shall be separately obtained (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do440 of Jun. 10, 1986). According to the evidence revealed in the record, the facilities in this case exceed the scope of the park project permitted by the re-appellant, and it is obvious that the act of installing the facilities falls under subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 16-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Natural Parks Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16057 of Dec. 31, 198). Thus, the re-appellant's order or decision of conviction under Article 57 subparagraph 2 and Article 23 (1) of the Act shall not be affirmed and the decision of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)