logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2016.03.23 2016고정55
국토의계획및이용에관한법률위반등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. In order to change the form and quality of land in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act or to store goods in green areas, control areas or natural environment conservation areas for not less than one month, permission from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or heads of Sis/Guns shall be obtained, as prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Nevertheless, from June 19, 2008 to January 14, 2016, the Defendant operated a second water shop with the trade name of approximately KRW 3,190 square meters in the Gu-si B, Si-si, which is a green area for production, and stored approximately 500 tons of recycled goods, scrap metal, etc. on the same site for more than one month and changed the form and quality of the land and stockpiled goods without permission.

2. A person who intends to divert farmland in violation of any Act on the Farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for agricultural and fishery food after obtaining confirmation from the Farmland Management Committee having jurisdiction over the farmland location, as prescribed by Presidential Decree

Nevertheless, at the same time, the Defendant used approximately 3,190 square meters of land in a place outside an agricultural promotion area, outside of an agricultural promotion area, as a field yard operating a secondhand shop, and diverted farmland.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of D and E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 140 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56 (1) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense; Articles 57 (2) and 34 (1) of the Farmland Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act reflects the wrongness of the sentencing, the fact that the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult, and even if the Defendant received a restoration order from an administrative office several times, the instant land was not restored to its original state, and the same offense was already subject to criminal punishment at the same place as the instant case.

arrow