logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.27 2018고정441
공유수면관리및매립에관한법률위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to occupy or use public waters shall obtain permission to occupy or use public waters from the management agency of public waters.

Nevertheless, the Defendant cultivated crops such as mash, etc. from the public waters surface (around 66 square meters in size) adjacent to the C line from the rock on May 1, 2017 to the land surface (a wooden board structure) without obtaining permission for occupancy or use from the management authority of public waters, and occupied and used the relevant public waters without permission by installing facilities for storing agricultural equipment (a wooden board structure).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a written accusation against a person who violates the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Public Waters, a location map for occupying and using public waters without permission, and a photo and a name tag for each business trip;

1. Article 62 of the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Waters for Criminal Facts and Articles 62 subparagraph 2 and 8 (1) of the Act on the Management of Waters for which Punishment is electively Shared, and Selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant occupied or used without permission for the purpose of cultivating crops jointly owned waters. The defendant notified the defendant of his/her restoration to the original state several times at the competent administrative agency, but the defendant did not implement it, and eventually, the fact that the restoration to the original state was performed by the competent administrative agency is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering the fact that the defendant is old, there is no past history of criminal punishment for about 20 years, the period and area of the defendant's co-owned waters occupation, sex, family relationship, living environment, circumstances leading to the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records.

arrow