logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.05.29 2014고정178
건축법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of a house in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu C.

No building nor its walls shall exceed the vertical surface of the building line.

Nevertheless, on October 2012, the Defendant, at the end of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul, installed a fence and a gate by breaking about 1 meter of the building line.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Accusation against a violator of the Building Act;

1. A written accusation;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of statutes on architectural drawings;

1. Article 108 (1) of the Building Act and Articles 108 (1) and 47 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that since the defendant was informed and constructed before installing a fence, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, the defendant's act constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant's act was not a crime under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

In full view of the overall purport of records and arguments, although the defendant asked the public official in charge before installing a wall as stated in the facts of the crime, it is recognized that the public official in charge did not receive information about the building line from the public official in charge.

However, according to the witness E and D’s legal statement, the defendant filed a civil petition against the person who lives in front of the defect in order to install a wall and the head of a Tong, etc., and accordingly, D, who is a public official in charge at the time, should not install a wall after sending the construction line back to the site (at the time, the construction was conducted in the state of floor foundation). Nevertheless, the defendant can be seen as having completed the installation of a wall by forceing construction work, and whether it is possible to install a wall from a civil petitioner.

arrow