beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is reversed.
The defendant is punished by a fine.
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment of the court below to the extent of this case is to be excluded from the judgment of the court below, since the court below acquitted all the facts charged in this case, and only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the judgment of the court below to the acquittal as to the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) was in violation of the instant public notice, and the Defendant changed the use of the instant house to “multi-user housing”, and this constitutes a violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.
3. Determination
(a) Where anyone charged with this part of the charges intends to construct a building, alter its use, or install a structure in a district unit planning zone, he/she shall comply with such district unit planning
Nevertheless, on November 2015, the Defendant, in violation of a district unit plan that restricts the construction of a Class-I exclusive residential area from B to less than two households per parcel on September 22, 2015, in violation of a district unit plan that restricts the construction of a house approved for use as a household on September 22, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily carried out the construction of a house with 106.53 square meters per one story and 106.53 square meters per household on the second floor, and changed its use in violation of a district unit plan by extending a house of 108.53 square meters for each household on the third floor.
B. The lower court’s determination is justifiable to interpret that the alteration of use of a building, which is prohibited by Article 141 subparag. 3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), is the alteration of a house corresponding to the subdivided items under Article 3-5 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act into another subdivided item. Even if the alteration of a building causes the alteration of a building, the act that does not fall under the alteration of a subdivided item cannot be deemed as an act of “the alteration of purpose of use.”