logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.02.20 2013고정1801
건축법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to build a temporary building for office use shall commence the construction after reporting to the head of the competent Gu.

Nevertheless, on April 1, 2013, the defendant, without reporting the construction to the head of the Incheon Yeonsu-gu Office, established one container stuff, a temporary building in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C, for the purpose of the office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Article 11 subparag. 1 and Article 20(2) of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 11921, Jul. 16, 2013) on criminal facts

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel knew that the establishment of the temporary building of this case is permitted, and thus, the defendant's act constitutes an error in law.

2. Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not merely mean a site of law, but generally mean that an act of misunderstanding does not constitute a crime, which is permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes, but in his special circumstances, if he knows that it does not constitute a crime and there is a justifiable reason for

However, even according to the materials submitted by the defendant, it seems that the defendant did not confirm the procedures for building a temporary building and whether it is possible to report to the Gu office or a sub-contractor, etc. under the jurisdiction prior to the establishment of the temporary building of this case. Thus, the defendant's act cannot be

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

arrow