logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.02.03 2016고단3533
개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

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

Nevertheless, on May 2015, the Defendant operated a business entity cultivating bean products in the name of Gyeonggi-si, the Gyeonggi-do, the development restriction zone, and the trade name of "E", without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, changed the form and quality of concrete to the 3rd floor of the total floor area of 897.5 square meters, extended the height of the steel frame into 2 meters, and changed the prefabricated.

As a result, the Defendant changed the form and quality of land and extended the building without obtaining permission from the competent authorities in the development restriction zone for profit-making purposes.

2. Any person who constructs a building, changes the purpose of use, installs a structure, changes the form and quality of land, etc. within a development restriction zone without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, shall comply with an order to suspend construction works, or to remove, close, rebuild or relocate a building, structure, etc., or to take other necessary measures with regard thereto, if the competent authorities order such suspension;

A. On March 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the original state by April 1, 2016, with respect to the extension of the height of concrete and greenhouse floors as stated in paragraph (1) from the lower-Namnam market. However, the Defendant did not comply with the corrective order.

B. On May 10, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to restore a prefabricated type plate to its original state by no later than May 31, 2016, to extend the prefabricated type plate as set forth in paragraph (1), but did not comply with the corrective order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. Land register and building register;

1. A certificate of land use plan;

1. A written investigation of offenses and field photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes related to each corrective order and receipt;

1. Designation and management of areas where the selective development of and the punishment for criminal facts is restricted;

arrow