209No4602 Violation of the Housing Act

GuA (58years, South Korea)

Defendant

Maximumization

Attorney Han-soo (Korean)

Busan District Court Decision 2009 High Court Decision 6225 Decided December 3, 2009

May 28, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The defendant, who is not qualified as a housing manager, was employed as the head of the apartment management office of this case according to the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives. Thus, it is unreasonable to punish only the defendant without punishing all the dong representatives or non-corporate groups participating in the resolution. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which neglected it is erroneous for misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Housing Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

However, even if the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives does not have to execute the illegal resolution of the council of occupants' representatives, it cannot be deemed that the defendant employed Park C1 as the head of the management office in accordance with the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives, and it cannot be deemed that the crime was not committed. The reason why the council of occupants' representatives is not punished or other Dong representatives attending the resolution are not punished under the Housing Act cannot affect the punishment of the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

However, although the Housing Act imposes strict sanctions on the violation of the regulations to protect the rights and interests of occupants and users of multi-family housing, the Housing Act imposes upon the person qualified as a housing manager or assistant housing manager as the chief of the management office for the safe and efficient management of multi-family housing, it is necessary to impose strict sanctions on the violation of the regulations to protect the rights and interests of occupants and users of multi-family housing. However, while the defendant object to Park C1 at the time of employment as the chief of the management office, the defendant was appointed as the chief of the management office according to the resolution, as the majority of the council of occupants' representatives agreed at the time of employment of Park C1 as the chief of the management office, the representative who agreed to the resolution was not punished, and the representative was not punished, regardless of the personal interest of the defendant, the crime of this case was committed in the course of the performance of the duties of the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives without remuneration, regardless of the defendant's personal interest, and all other circumstances that led to the crime of this case, the defendant's excessive sentence of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 98 Subparag. 8 and Article 56 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405 of Feb. 3, 2009) (Selection of Fine)

1. The type to be suspended;

Fines 500,000

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day)

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable circumstances in front)

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge, judge and senior judge;

Judge Lee Dong-dong

Judges Shin Jae-won