logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.30 2015고단3236
허위공문서작성등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, each of the defendants B.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who served as the director of Daejeon F cadastral division from July 1, 2011 to was dismissed from office on February 9, 2015, Defendant B served as the Daejeon F cadastral division from July 31, 2007 to June 30, 2014.

G Co., Ltd. purchased the land located in Daejeon H (hereinafter “A”) around October 5, 2012 and tried to newly construct a 9-story building in that area. As land adjacent to the land A (land category; hereinafter “B”) and land category J (hereinafter “C”) were used as a road, construction should be made at a distance of 3 meters from the boundary of the land, which is the road, at a distance of 50cc from the boundary of the land when the land category of B and C is changed to all of the site, and construction of a 9-story building is possible at a distance of 68 square meters from the boundary of the land if it is possible to construct a 9-story building at a distance of 50cc from the boundary of the neighboring site.

On October 22, 2012, the architect K entrusted by G Co., Ltd requested the Daejeon F cadastral division to change the category of the said C land into a site and asked L Co., Ltd, an employee of the cadastral division, upon obtaining the approval from the Defendants on October 22, 2012, to the effect that “whether the said B land and C land are roads under the Building Act, whether the disuse is possible or not” was impossible. However, in the construction division, the answer was presented to the effect that “The J land (C) is deemed to be a road, and that the disuse of land and the merger of land should be possible in compliance with the provisions of Article 44 of the Building Act, etc.” was impossible.

Defendant

A, around October 23, 2012, after receiving a report from a public official M, who is a person in charge of public service, that the aforementioned reply was made in the construction division, and that the land category of B and C are being used as a road, and that it is impossible to merge with the listed land owned by Nonindicted N, but thereafter, the land category of B and C are changed from that time to November 201, 201.

arrow