(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.06 2016노451 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.06 2016노451

건축법위반등

Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,00,000.

3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the crime No. 1 (Violation of Building Act) and the crime No. 3 (Violation of National Land Planning and Utilization Act) of the judgment of the court below in the judgment below constituted a conceptual concurrence, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles by treating it as concurrent crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the judgment (based on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle). The crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below is “The defendant, on May 2, 2013, without obtaining permission from the head of Kimhae-si in Kimhae-si, from May 2, 2013, from 1 to 5 households, 2 stories from 1 to 5 households, and 3 stories increase the number of households from 1 to 5 households, and extended the 101 square meters of 4 stories.

Article 3 of the lower judgment provides that “The total number of households per parcel can not exceed four households, and the height of a building shall not exceed three floors, even though the date and place indicated in the foregoing paragraph 1, at the time and place of the district unit planning, the crime of Article 3 of the lower judgment was constructed that does not comply with the said district unit planning by increasing the number of households.

“The extension of a defendant to the above building constitutes several crimes (see Article 40 of the Criminal Act). Nevertheless, the court below dealt with each of the above crimes as concurrent crimes. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal principles is with merit.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 108 of the Building Act for criminal facts

참조조문

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.02.17 2016고정40

-창원지방법원 2016.04.06 2016고정120

-의정부지방법원 2017.12.21 2016고정1665

-수원지방법원 2017.06.08 2017고단1887

-수원지방법원 2017.08.25 2017고단3394