Whether a change in the purpose of use under the Building Act must necessarily entail a tangible change (negative) and the timing of the crime of a change in the purpose of use without reporting

Since the act of altering the use under Article 14(2) of the Building Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act include not only the act of changing the use from the purpose stipulated in each of the items of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to another purpose, but also the act of using it for other purposes, the alteration does not necessarily necessarily entail a tangible alteration. However, in the case of changing the use resulting from a tangible alteration, it may result in the occurrence of a crime of altering the use of a report without reporting it.

Article 14(2) of the Building Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Do9 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 301) Supreme Court Decision 90Do2860 Delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1316), Supreme Court Decision 92Do1647 Delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 3042), Supreme Court Decision 92Do322 delivered on April 13, 1993 (Gong193, 1428), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1575 Delivered on April 7, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1907)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 2002No1503 delivered on September 17, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the alteration of use under Article 14(2) of the Building Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act include not only the alteration of use for other purposes from the purpose stipulated in each of the items of the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but also the act of using it for other purposes, the alteration shall not necessarily entail a tangible alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1575, Apr. 7, 1995, etc.). However, in the case of a change of use resulting from a tangible alteration, it shall be deemed that the alteration without reporting results in the violation of the purpose of use without reporting when it comes to a tangible alteration act without reporting.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below was just in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Building Act as to the defendant, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of unauthorized reporting or altering the purpose of use under the Building Act. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)