logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.25 2019노1335
개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of one million won) imposed by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, while operating a secondhand shop, changed the form and quality of land within a development-restricted zone without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency, and stockpiled goods on the ground of the land within the development-restricted zone, and the liability for the crime is not minor.

On October 19, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 months for a violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development by the Seoul Central District Court, which became final and conclusive on October 27, 2017, and committed the instant crime even during the suspended sentence.

All the defendants have been sentenced to criminal punishment for eight times (two times of suspended execution of imprisonment and six times of fine) and four times of such punishment (one time of suspended execution of imprisonment and three times of fine) are criminal records of the same kind as the crimes of this case.

However, it cannot be deemed that the degree of the instant crime is too serious.

The defendant seems to have set up two containers, which were laid on the ground of land in a development restriction zone, on his own.

The Defendant appears not only to cooperate with the investigation but also to repent of his mistake by recognizing the crime of this case.

The defendant is aged 71 years in age, and economic circumstances do not seem to be good.

In addition, even if the defendant's career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing condition of the court below against the defendant was changed at the time of the trial, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it goes beyond a reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed on the ground of appeal.

arrow