[2] Whether the joint penal provisions under Article 81(2) of the Building Act include both a penal provision for a business owner (a business owner) who is the main agent of the act of violation and a penal provision for an offender (affirmative), and whether the “individual” under the same provision includes a “individual” as a member of the association under the Civil Act (affirmative)

[2] In the penal provisions of Article 79 subparagraph 2 of the Building Act and Article 10 (1) of the same Act, where the subject person is limited to a certain business owner, such as the owner, construction executor, etc., the joint penal provisions of Article 81 (2) of the same Act shall expand the subject person to a person who actually executes the pertinent business in order to secure effectiveness of the above penal provisions when the subject person is not a business owner or a person who actually executes the pertinent business, so that such person violates the above penal provisions in relation to the pertinent business, it shall be punished in accordance with the above joint penal provisions as well as a penal provision for the business owner who is the subject of the violation. In addition, the "individual" of the "corporate or an individual" under Article 81 (2) of the same Act includes the members of the association under the Civil Act, and thus, a representative of the association under the Civil Act who actually commits a violation in relation to the business of the association may not be exempt from the liability for the crime under the above joint penal provisions.

1. According to the records, while the defendant is the head of the association of officetels (title omitted) composed of the non-indicted 7 et al., the non-indicted 20th above ground floor (name omitted) above the 7th above the 20th above the 20th above the 20th above the 20th above the 20th above the 77.84m above the 77.84m above the 77.45m above the 1st, the 2nd above the ground, the 17th above the 17th above the 17th above the 17th above the 17th above the 17th above the ground, the 5th below, and the 6th above the 6th above the 6th above the 1st above the 1st above the 1st above the 1st above the 7th above the 1st above the 2002 first to the 4th above the 1st above the 1st above the 2000th below's ground for appeal.

2. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act that stipulates the date, time, place, and method of a crime to specify the facts charged is to limit the scope of trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. Thus, considering the nature of the indicted crime, it is sufficient to specify the facts causing the public prosecution by stating the date, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it is possible to distinguish the facts constituting the cause of the public prosecution from other facts. Even if some of them are unclear, the facts charged can be specified along with the stated facts. Thus, if there is no impediment to the defendant's exercise of defense, the effect of the public prosecution does not affect (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8077, Mar. 26, 2004).

According to the facts charged and the record of the instant case, since the matters concerning the modification of the design of the instant officetel and the construction details carried out by the Defendant without obtaining permission for the modification of design from the beginning of February 2002 to April 1, 2002 are clearly specified as seen earlier, even if the prosecutor specified only the representative part in the facts charged and omitted the remainder, it cannot be deemed that the instant facts charged were not specified. The grounds of appeal on this part is rejected.

3. The penal provisions of Article 79 subparagraph 2 of the Building Act and Article 10 (1) of the same Act limit the person subject to the application to a certain business owner, such as the owner and construction executor, etc. In order to secure effectiveness of the above penal provisions, if the person subject to the application is not a business owner or a person who actually executes the pertinent business, the joint penal provisions of Article 81 (2) of the same Act expand the person subject to the application to the person who actually executes the pertinent business in order to secure effectiveness of the above penal provisions in relation to the pertinent business, so that such person commits a violation of the above penal provisions in relation to the pertinent business, the penal provisions of the offender who is punished under the above joint penal provisions as well as the penal provisions for the business owner who is the subject of the violation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Do2870 delivered on July 1

In addition, the "individual" of "a corporation or individual" under Article 81 (2) of the same Act includes members of a partnership under the Civil Act. Thus, a representative of a partnership under the Civil Act who actually committed an act of violation in connection with the business of a partnership may not be exempted from the liability for a crime under the same joint penal provision (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do1151 delivered on August 26, 1969).

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the defendant who was directly involved in the progress of the construction work of this case as the president of the (title omitted) officetel association composed of the non-indicted 7 other than the non-indicted 2, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of joint penal provisions or the scope of application, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the meaning of joint penal provisions or the scope of application of joint penal provisions. The ground of appeal that the court below found the above association as a juristic person

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)