beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million and by a fine of KRW 700,000,000.
The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
No person shall use or benefit from State property without following procedures and methods prescribed by the State Property Act or other Acts.
1. Defendant A, as the head of the Guro branch from February 2019, occupied a household building installed in the size of 42 square meters of the State-owned land of Guro-gu, Seoul, E, F, G, H, I, and J, which is a state-owned property managed by the Korea Rail Network Authority, and used and profit from the said State-owned land without obtaining permission for use.
2. Defendant B, who is a state-owned property managed by the Korea Urban Facilities Corporation, did not withdraw from the Republic of Korea even after the period of permission for use expires on December 31, 2014, but used and profit from the said state-owned land without obtaining permission for use from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
[Defendant A] The State-owned land of Guro-gu, Seoul, E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “instant State-owned land”) is State property managed by the Korea Rail Network Authority.
I asserts that the permission of use was obtained on June 2015.
However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, Defendant A stated the scheduled notice of permission for use of State-owned property stated as “K” by the Korea Rail Network Authority around June 2015. However, although the land number of the land was stated as “K” in the scheduled notice of permission for use of State-owned property issued by the Defendant, at the time, the Korea Rail Network Authority appears to have erroneously stated the land number of the said notice on the ground of its influence and the reason for its influence, and it appears that Defendant A prepared and delivered the notice to Defendant B in the purport that the pertinent notice was intended to give A a scheduled notice of permission for use of State-owned land as to the part of the State-owned land in this case possessed by Defendant B. It is recognized that