logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.07.15 2016노297
국토의계획및이용에관한법률위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant had established any obstacle to the entries in the facts charged outside of the coffee store operated by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case’s judgment are the cryp E located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was designated as an aesthetic district. While the Defendant left the construction line of at least three meters from the boundary line of the esctic road, anyone should install structures, fences, stairs, parking lots, chemical teams, and other similar business facilities by leaving the construction line, in violation of this provision during the period from July 7, 2014 to July 13, 2015, he/she operated the business without permission by installing 3 meters away from the E burial in width and 5 meters long from the scryp (hereinafter “in this case”).

The lower court: (a) from the time when the Defendant acquired the above coffee specialty from another person, there was water installed the instant obstacles;

In the context of assertion, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant installed it, and if so, the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that he could not be punished under Article 141 subparag. 4 of the National Land Planning Act, which merely takes over without having been “construction” or “construction” of the instant obstacles.

B. Examining the judgment of the court below on the above ground of a comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment is just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

It does not appear.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow