[건축법위반][공1992.11.15.(932),3042]
(a) Scope of the alteration of use under the Building Act;
(b) The case holding that it constitutes an act of changing the purpose of use even if no admission fee has been paid if a dance hall was prepared to enable customers to dance and had them run it as a dancing restaurant;
C. Whether Article 55 subparagraph 3 and Article 7-3 (1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) are unconstitutional provisions against the principle of no punishment without law (negative)
A. The alteration of use under the Building Act does not necessarily necessarily entail a tangible alteration, and the alteration of use by a successor to a building which has already been altered is also an alteration of use.
(b) The case holding that it constitutes an act of changing the purpose of use on the grounds that, even if no admission fee was paid if a business operator had a dance hall prepared for dancing by customers after obtaining a business license for a general entertainment entertainment business that enables them to enjoy dancing, etc. provided by entertainment workers, the act of performing the food service business by altering the internal structure of the building and allowing them to enjoy dancing by allowing them to enjoy dancing;
C. Articles 55 subparag. 3 and 7-3(1) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) are not unconstitutional provisions against the principle of no punishment without law.
(a) Article 14(c) of the Building Act; Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 55 subparag. 3 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991); Article 7-3(1) of the former Building Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 86Do1865 delivered on July 8, 1986 (Gong1986, 1018) 87Do133 delivered on August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1488) 89Do2525 delivered on April 13, 1990 (Gong190, 1106)
A
Defendant
Attorney B
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No1506 delivered on May 29, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.
In light of the records, the act of changing the purpose of use under the Building Act does not necessarily require a tangible change, and the adoption evidence of the judgment of the first instance court maintained by the court below does not necessarily lead to the alteration of the type. It is justified in the court below's decision that C, a lessee of the third floor stand of the building of this case, did not put a guest seat so that customers can enjoy dancing, and thus, C, as it is recognized that it alters the internal structure of dancing space, and the existing changed purpose of use constitutes an act of changing the purpose of use (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do2525 delivered on April 13, 190). Thus, it is not proper for the court below to recognize the violation of the provisions of the Building Act as unconstitutional since it did not change the purpose of use of the above C, which constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Building Act concerning entertainment business under the Act 100, and it does not constitute an act of restricting the use of entertainment facilities or an act of providing entertainment facilities for the purpose of its use under the Act without any legal reasoning.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)