logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.10.15 2020노1257
군사기지및군사시설보호법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

“Destruction of military installations or damage to their functions” under Article 9(1)9 of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act (hereinafter “Military Bases Act”) means only direct infringement on the military installations themselves and does not constitute an act that is likely to cause danger to the operation of military installations. Thus, even if the Defendant established a iron panel in front of the entrance of the FB shooting range, it cannot be said that there was a direct infringement on the shooting range itself as long as the access of military forces and shooting training have been continued, it cannot be said that there was a direct infringement on the shooting range itself. Thus, the Defendant’s act of installing obstacles does not constitute an act prohibited by Article 9(1)9 of the Military Bases Act.

Judgment

The summary of the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below held that the defendant's act of installing obstacles constitutes an act of impairing the function of military installations as provided by Article 9 (1) 9 of the Military Bases Act according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.

① In order to prevent access to and use of military-related shooting ranges in the process of demanding the relocation of the said shooting range as employees of C’s affiliate companies that purchased adjacent land to the FF shooting range located in Seo-gu Incheon, in order to prevent the access to and use of the military-related shooting range, the Defendant closed the entrance, etc. in front of the entrance.

(2) The same year from February 25, 2019, during the closing period, since there was no passage for military supplies transport vehicles, ambulances, etc., other than the closed entrance by the defendant, to enter the shooting range.

4. up to 23. Up to the same year.

6. He did not implement shooting training in the F shooting range;

This can be evaluated as damaging the essential functions of the shooting range, which is a military installation.

arrow