logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2021.02.04 2020고단1821
개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to construct buildings, change the purpose of use, install structures, change the form and quality of land, fell bamboo and trees, divide land, store articles within a zone subject to development restriction shall obtain permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on March 2020, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the competent authority, in the king-si B Forest (area of 8,200 square meters) located in the border development restriction zone, and changed the form and quality into a road by packing a concrete package of approximately 200 square meters, installed a structure in a size of approximately 950 square meters, and constructed a residential building in a size of approximately 139.4 square meters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A certificate of all registered matters;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (verification of the year of offenses committed following reinforcement or investigation);

1. Article 32 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas subject to Restrictions on the Selective Development of Punishments, Article 32 Subparag. 1 and Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Criminal Facts, and Selection of Fines

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was punished twice by a fine for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant appears to have restored to the original state

arrow