A. Whether a person who carried out construction in violation of the Building Act is liable for violation of the Building Act in a case where the person does not establish an accomplice relationship with the owner (negative)

B. Whether an actual offender who does not constitute a building owner based on Article 57 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) can be punished (negative)

A. In a case where any act of changing the purpose of use, which is deemed to be a construction of a building under Article 48 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191), is punished pursuant to Article 54(1) and the main text of Article 5(1) of the same Act. According to Article 54(1) of the same Act, the act of constructing a building without permission is punished only for the owner. In a case of a corporation, the representative is deemed to be the owner. Thus, even if a person who is not the owner, executes a construction (including the alteration of the purpose of use, which is deemed to be a building), as long as the relationship between the owner and the owner is not established

B. Article 57 of the same Act provides that, in cases where there is a legal entity or natural person to whom benefits from an act falling under the provisions of Article 54 of the same Act accrue, other than an actor who has committed an act falling under the provisions of Article 54 of the same Act, a legal entity or natural person may be punished in addition to punishing an actor, even if the legal entity or natural person did not process the act of committing the act of crime, not only a punishment

A. Article 54(1), the main sentence of Article 5(1), and Article 48(2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 90Do1219 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 233) 92Do163 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong192, 2701)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No5160 delivered on November 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that the act of altering the purpose of use of a building deemed to be a construction of a building under Article 48 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) is punished pursuant to Articles 54 (1) and 5 (1) of the same Act, and the act of constructing a building without permission is punished pursuant to Article 54 (1) of the same Act, and the representative of a juristic person is regarded as the owner. Thus, even if a person who is not the owner of a building executes a construction (including alteration of the purpose of use to be regarded as a construction), the person does not assume the responsibility of violating the Building Act unless it comes into existence between the owner and the owner of a building (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1219, Oct. 12, 190; 92Do163, Jul. 28, 1992). The court below's above decision is justified, and it is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of a natural person or a new person.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.