beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.03.26 2014노2703

옥외광고물등관리법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant posted banners with the consent of the housing owners by responding to the minimum degree of response, such as illegal removal works of the association, which is the implementer of the housing redevelopment project B in the Chang-si, Changwon-si, the residence of which is the head of the household, to the effect that it does not violate the social rules.

Even if the defendant's act is found guilty, in light of the above circumstances, the sentence of the court below (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where a determination of a justifiable act as to the assertion of a justifiable act satisfies the requirements, such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, urgency, and supplement that there is no other means or method other than that of the act,

(2) Article 2-2 of the Outdoor Advertisements, etc. Control Act provides that a person who is dissatisfied with a housing redevelopment project shall not be deemed a justifiable act, in light of the following: (a) the purpose of Article 2-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall not be deemed to have infringed on the people’s freedom of political activities and other freedom and rights; and (b) the purpose of Article 2-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents is to ensure that a person who is dissatisfied with a housing redevelopment project is not an unlawful act; (c) the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”).

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The Defendant committed the instant crime in order to express the opinions of residents opposing the housing redevelopment project.