[학교보건법위반][공2008하,1015]
[1] The meaning of a “school boundary line” under the former School Health Act and subordinate statutes as the basis for the establishment of school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones
[2] The case holding that since the distance from a wall to the pertinent place of business exceeds 200 square meters by deeming the “school boundary” under the former School Health Act and subordinate statutes as a school wall rather than the boundary line of a school site, the above place of business is not within the “Large Cleanup Zone”
[1] Article 5 (1) of the former School Health Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8391 of Apr. 27, 2007) and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20740 of Feb. 29, 2008) aim to protect health, sanitation, and learning environment of schools from acts and facilities referred to in each subparagraph of Article 6 (1) of the same Act in order to ultimately promote the efficiency of school education by protecting the health, sanitation, and learning environment of schools. School education is practically conducted within the school facilities such as teachers, playgrounds, and auditoriums. Thus, the "school boundary line", which is based on the above Act and subordinate statutes, should be deemed not to be the boundary of school sites, but to be the " boundary of a space where school education substantially takes place."
[2] The case holding that since the “school boundary line” under the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 8391 of Apr. 27, 2007) is deemed as a school fence rather than the boundary line of the school site, and the distance from the wall to the place of business concerned exceeds 200, the above business office is not within the “Standing Cleanup Zone”
[1] Article 5 (1) of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 8391 of Apr. 27, 2007), Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Health Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20740 of Feb. 29, 2008) / [2] Article 5 (1) of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 8391 of Apr. 27, 2007), Article 3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Health Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20740 of Feb. 29, 2008)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Law Firm Cheongju, Attorneys Yu Jae-gyeong et al.
Cheongju District Court Decision 2007No1008 Decided February 15, 2008
The appeal is dismissed.
Article 5 (1) of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 8391 of Apr. 27, 2007) provides that "In order to protect school health, sanitation, and learning environment, the superintendent of education shall establish a school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In this case, the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone shall not exceed 200 meters from the boundary of a school." Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "When the superintendent of education establishes a school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Act, it shall be divided into an absolute Cleanup Zone and a relative Cleanup Zone, but the absolute Cleanup Zone shall be up to 50 meters in straight line from the entrance door of a school, and the relative Cleanup Zone shall be an area excluding an absolute Cleanup Zone, which is within 200 meters in straight line from the boundary of a school, and ultimately, the boundary of a school school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone shall be established based on the boundary of a school education site in substance, such as school education and school building (hereinafter referred to the school).
In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the same purport, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Defendant committed acts and facilities prohibited in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, and there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, and in light of the above legal principles and records, it is proper to take such measures of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of “school boundary” under the School Health Act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to “school boundary” under the School Health Act.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)