logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노1349
임대주택법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Articles 41(4)5 and 19 of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13499, Aug. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same) apply only to cases where a lessee transfers a right of lease of a rental house or subleases a rental house with payment, and it does not apply to cases where a lessee temporarily uses a rental house without receiving any payment as the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's case is an exception to the transfer or sub-lease of Article 19 of the Rental Housing Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

In the first instance trial, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment, stating that “The Defendant, therefore, transferred the right of lease of rental housing to another person,” and that “The Defendant, thereby sublet the rental housing to another person,” was changed by this court’s permission. As such, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, which will be examined below.

B. 1) On April 3, 2011, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant rental housing between EP Corporation and EP Corporation on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court; (b) the Defendant’s assertion that the instant rental housing was merely a temporary use of the instant rental housing to D; and (c) the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant rental housing between EP and EP Corporation.

B. Es. Es. H.D. 2014

arrow