건축법위반
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is stipulated in Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and this is in accordance with the delegation of Article 35(3) of the Building Act, but the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the delegation ground of the Enforcement Decree is unclear. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Article 110 subparagraph 7 of the Building Act, which is the applicable provisions of the Act to the facts charged in this case, provides that "the owner or manager of a building who violates Article 35 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won." Article 35 (1) of the same Act provides that "the owner or manager of a building shall maintain and manage the building, site, and building equipment in compliance with Articles 40 through 58, 60 through 64, 64-2, 65-2, 66, 66-2, 67, and 68," and Article 35 (3) of the same Act provides that "the necessary matters concerning the standards, procedures, etc. for the maintenance and management of the building under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree."
Therefore, matters to be prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act by delegation under Article 35 (3) of the same Act shall be those stipulated under Articles 40 through 58, 60 through 64, 64-2, 65-2, 66, 66-2, 67 and 68 of the Building Act.
However, the screen facilities under Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act do not fall under any of the provisions of Articles 40 through 58, 60 through 64, 64-2, 65-2, 66, 66-2, 67 and 68 of the Building Act.
Therefore, even if Article 55 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act is violated, it cannot be said that Article 35(1) and (3) of the Building Act is not violated.