logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.08.14 2014고정128
국유재산법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

To the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the following facts charged are organized and recognized as follows:

In spite of the fact that no one is able to use or profit from state property without following the procedures and methods prescribed in the Act, the Defendant used a part of 339 square meters, which is a part of C. C. 625 square meters and D. 3,474 square meters, from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2013, as state property, as a parking lot, without following the lawful procedures and methods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A written statement of a person in charge of preparation of E;

1. A written accusation;

1. Investigation report (Submission of a certified copy of the cadastral map), investigation report (Submission of a business trip report), investigation report (the photograph of the offender against the State-owned land);

1. Application of the cadastral map, field photograph, and relevant statutes in cadastral records;

1. Article 82 of the State Property Act and Articles 82 and 7 (1) of the same Act and the selection of fines concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the Defendant does not exclusively use, for the purpose of parking, the entire area of the C road 625 square meters and D road 3,474 square meters, which is part of the area of 3,474 square meters in Yangju-si, a State-owned property, for the purpose of parking lots, and only one motor vehicle owned by the Defendant is parked on the instant land.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the land of this case is the land located in GKafest located in the GKafest located in the two weeks run by the Defendant, and the Defendant, without complying with the lawful procedures and methods for using the land of this case, has received several statements from the competent authorities to refrain from parking on the land of this case, while operating the above carpet.

arrow