The relation between the violation of the Parking Lot Act and the violation of the Building Act, which is established for the act of changing the use of the parking lot attached to the building without permission.

Since the Parking Lot Act and the Building Act differ in their respective legislative purposes, regulations, and objects, it cannot be deemed that the Parking Lot Act is a special law under the Building Act. Meanwhile, the purpose of punishing the act of changing the use of a parking lot attached to a building is to maintain and secure the parking lot facilities installed in the king. The purpose of punishing the act of changing the use of a building constructed after obtaining permission is to prevent the act of changing the use of a building without permission is to prevent the danger of the regulation on the structure and facility standards and use of the building. Therefore, it is reasonable to regard the punishment regulations of the Parking Lot Act as a separate independent element, not a special law on the punishment regulations under the Building Act, but a violation of the Parking Lot Act and the Building Act without permission is in the commercial relation.

Article 40 of the Criminal Act, Article 19-4(1) of the Parking Lot Act, Articles 5(1) and 48 of the Building Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Yang-nam

Seoul District Court Decision 89No1313 delivered on August 8, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel:

In theory, Article 29 subparagraph 4 of the Parking Lot Act regulating the act of changing the purpose of use of a parking lot attached to a building for other purposes is a special law on Article 54 (1) and Article 48 of the Building Act regulating the act of changing the purpose of use of a building without permission of the authority within the urban planning zone, and the violation of the Parking Lot Act and the violation of the Building Act are in conflict with the related person in violation of the Special Act and the general law.

In a case where a certain act constitutes several elements prescribed in the punishment laws and regulations of different Acts, the punishment of each Act shall be determined by comprehensively examining the legislative purpose, matters, application, legal interest and protection of the law. The purpose of the Parking Lot Act is to promote the convenience of the public and to contribute to the maintenance and improvement of urban functions by regulating matters necessary for the installation, maintenance and management of parking lots for motor vehicles parking in cities (Article 1 of the Parking Lot Act). If a building is constructed for a certain purpose and on a certain scale in an urban planning zone, the parking lot attached to the building shall be installed inside the building or on its site (Article 19-4 of the Act) and the act of using the parking lot installed for any purpose other than the parking lot (Article 29-4 of the Act) is to protect the public welfare of the building (Article 19-4 of the Building Act). Since the purpose of the Act is to protect the building site, structure, installation standards and usage of the building and to protect the public welfare of the building without permission or on a large-scale repair of the building area (Article 4 of the Building Act).

In this regard, the lower court is correct to view that a single act is in the ordinary competition relationship that satisfies the requirements for the elements of several crimes. The arguments can not be employed since they are merely an independent opinion.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)