beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
Defendant
B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding D (hereinafter “the instant river site”) ground housing (hereinafter “the instant housing”) was a mixed building with B, and the Defendant was only a simple resident in the said housing. As such, the Defendant occupied the said river site without permission.
subsection (b) of this section.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s punishment (4 million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
According to the records of this case and the facts in this court, Defendant B, without permission from the river management agency, built houses in Chuncheon-si, the river site, from November 25, 2013 to November 25, 2013, occupied and used the river site without permission.
“The facts constituting the crime indicated in the above summary order reveal that: (a) on December 14, 2015, a summary order of KRW 3 million was issued by the Chuncheon District Court by a fine of KRW 2347,00,000; (b) the above summary order became final and conclusive on January 23, 2016; (c) the house at issue in the above summary order is the same as the instant house; and (d) the applicable law recognizes the same facts as “Article 95 Subparag. 5 and Article 33(1) of the River Act,” etc. As such, the facts constituting the crime in the above summary order and the facts charged against Defendant B in this case can be deemed to be the same as the object of occupation and use without permission; and (e) where the summary order becomes final and conclusive with respect to a part of the crime related to the single comprehensive crime, such as continuing criminal, the land for the instant summary order was newly constructed on the basis of the date on which the summary order was issued, and thus, acquitted on the part of Defendant B from 14.