logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1991. 2. 26. 선고 90도2678 판결
[건축법위반][공1991.4.15.(894),1122]
Main Issues

Whether Article 49 of the Building Act can be punished pursuant to Article 55 subparagraph 5 of the Building Act, regardless of whether it falls under Article 4 of the former Act on the Management of Advertisements, etc. if an advertising tower is established without permission in excess of the size prescribed in Article 100 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

Article 4 of the former Act on the Management of Advertisements, etc. provides that if it is necessary to maintain public morals or prevent harm to the public, the form, size, etc. of the advertisement posting facilities or the installation of the advertisement posting facilities shall be prohibited or restricted. However, this is different from the purpose of regulation or regulatory contents of Article 49, Article 55 subparagraph 5 of the Building Act, Article 100 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which regulates the installation of an advertising tower as a structure above a certain size for public purposes, and thus, if an advertising tower is installed without permission more than the size prescribed in the above construction regulations, it may be punished pursuant to the Building Act, regardless of whether it falls under Article 4 of the former Act on the Management of Advertisements, etc., and the above provision of the former Advertisements, etc.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 49 and 55 subparag. 5 of the Building Act, Article 100 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 4 of the former Advertisements Control Act (amended by Act No. 4242 of Aug. 1, 1990)

Escopics

Defendant 1 and one other

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendants

Defense Counsel

Attorney 000

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No3452 delivered on November 1, 1990

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined.

Article 55 Subparag. 5 of the Building Act provides that an act of constructing a structure, etc. without permission under Article 49 of the same Act shall be punished. Article 49 of the same Act and Article 100 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the provisions of Articles 54 through 57 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an advertising tower with a height exceeding 4 meters. Meanwhile, Article 4 of the Advertisements Management Act provides that where it is necessary to maintain public morals and to prevent harm to the public, the form, size, size, color, contents, display of advertisements, or installation of bulletin facilities shall be prohibited or restricted, but this is different from the purpose of regulation or regulation under the above Building Act, which regulates the installation of an advertising tower as a structure beyond a certain size for public purposes, once it is installed without permission, it shall be punished by the Building Act regardless of whether it falls under Article 4 of the same Act, and thus, Article 54 through 57 of the Building Act shall be applied only to the above advertisements without permission (Article 55 of the Building Act).

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow