Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 ⑴ 사실오인 및 법리오해 ㈎ 공유재산 사용의 점에 관하여 국가에서 공유재산인 이 사건 토지에 거주하도록 강제이주하였으므로 피고인은 이 사건 토지를 점유할 권리가 있어 구성요건 해당성이 없거나 위법성이 조각된다.

㈏ 미신고 건축의 점에 관하여 관할관청에서 컨테이너형 임시거주시설 지원 계획이 있었으나 그 계획 실현이 지체되는 상황에서 혹서기에 대비하기 위하여 시민사회단체의 지원을 받아 가설건축물을 축조한 것인데, 건설주체가 관할관청에서 주민으로 변경되었다고 하여 신고의무가 발생한다고 볼 수는 없으므로 구성요건 해당성이 없거나 위법성이 조각된다.

【The sentence of unfair sentencing (one million won of fine) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. As the prosecutor (i.e., mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles at the time of the instant case, construction at the place where a fire had already occurred is likely to collapse or additional fire, the act of blocking construction constitutes an exception to emergency evacuation under the Criminal Act, a justifiable act, or a procedure of vicarious execution under Article 85 of the Building Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable considering the fact that the Defendant has a history of punishment several times with the same power, and that there is no reflection on his fault.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “using or making profits from public property” under Articles 99 and 6(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act as to the determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the use of public property constitutes a continuous crime in which a tentative act committed continuously and continuously making profits from public property is repeated.

Therefore, even if the opportunity for the use of and benefit from public property is made by external enforcement, such enforcement has been terminated.