logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.06.25 2015고정168
문화재보호법위반
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No one shall alter the current state of State-designated cultural heritage without permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, from May 28, 2012 to March 3, 2012, the Defendant constructed a new building for the inspection under the jurisdiction of the competent authorities without obtaining permission from the competent authorities in the D Protection Zone, which is State-designated cultural heritage in Chuncheon City.

Accordingly, the defendant changed the phenomenon of the D protective zone, which is a State-designated cultural property, without permission from the competent authorities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Voluntary statement of E preparation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a field photograph of the violation, and a report on investigation (a statement of accusation against the complainant);

1. Article 99 (1) 1 and Article 35 (1) 1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the existing temple that was destroyed by a fire was restored to the same level, so it cannot be deemed to have changed the phenomenon of D protection zones, which are State-designated cultural heritage, and ② the construction is carried out without verifying whether it was permitted by the competent authorities, but there was no intention to commit the crime.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by this court in addition to the purport of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, ① the inspection to be restored through construction has changed its form, such as the increase of the previous area of 46 square meters, and the construction of a new warehouse, ② the form of the inspection has changed, and the type of the D protection zone, which is State-designated cultural heritage, has changed. As such, despite the change in the status of the D protection zone, the Defendant was in the desire to start the inspection work in accordance with the tin (the first file in April), and accordingly, to the competent authority.

arrow