(영문) 수원지방법원 2004. 11. 25. 선고 2004노2812 판결[개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반][미간행]
Defendant
Defendant
St. St. Sheet iron
Suwon District Court Decision 2004Gohap821 Delivered on July 2, 2004
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: ① The use of the official space owned by the defendant as an annexed parking lot is permitted by Article 14 subparagraph 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development; ② the use of a tent between the outer wall and the wall of the house owned by him as a warehouse by using a tent pipe is an act of using it as a "an act of using it as a vain" under Article 6 and subparagraph 2 (f) of the attached Table 1 subparagraph 2 of the Management Regulations of Areas of Restricted Development, which is the direction of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and it constitutes an act of using it as a vain without permission or report; however, the judgment below convict
First, according to Article 11(1)4 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and Article 14 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who intends to change the form and quality of land to install an off-road parking lot on a site-based land shall obtain permission from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu. Thus, the defendant, who is the evidence duly admitted by the court below, can be recognized the fact that the defendant changed the form and quality of land to use 90 square meters of miscellaneous land (tax address omitted) as an annexed parking lot in Suwon-si, the ownership of which is no permission from the competent administrative agency, in full view of the partial statement, entry of land cadastre, and images of on-site photographs (site No. 7 of investigation records), etc.
Then, according to Article 6 of the Development Restriction Zone Management Regulations, which is the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s directives, and Article 1 subparag. 2(f) of the attached Table 1 of the same Table, the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion that “an act of using a duin between the outer wall and the wall so as to manage the house can be conducted without obtaining permission or making a report.” However, this refers to a case where the Defendant, who is the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, uses it as a place where the goods, etc. are kept in custody for the purpose of managing the house. In full view of the part of the statement at the lower court court’s court, on-site photographs, images of the site photographs, general building ledgers, etc., the Defendant, without filing a report with the head of Si/Gun/Gu, operated a restaurant of the trade name “(trade name omitted)” in his/her own house and the outer wall and fence, and used it as a warehouse or boiler room in custody for the operation of the restaurant. The above act cannot be viewed as a development restriction zone without permission or report.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Park Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)