The meaning of "the direction to North Korea" under the main sentence of Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12403 of Feb. 24, 1988).

"The direction to North Korea" under the main sentence of Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12403 of Feb. 24, 1988) refers not to the direction to North Korea, but to the direction to North Korea.

Article 90 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12403 of Feb. 24, 1988)

Defendant 1 and one other

Each Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 88No264 delivered on October 6, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to Article 41(4) of the Building Act and the main sentence of Article 90 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12403, Feb. 24, 1988), in cases where a building is constructed in an exclusive residential area or a residential area, the height of the building is limited to not more than two times (four times in cases of a building with two floors or less and less than eight meters in height) the horizontal distance from each part of the building to the boundary line of an adjoining site to the due north direction. Thus, the term "the direction of North Korea" under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be deemed not to refer to the direction of North Korea, but to the direction of North Korea.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, since the court of first instance established the fact that the horizontal distance from the third floor of the building of this case to the adjacent site is 6.568 meters, and the height of the building is limited to 13.136 meters or less, which is 2 times the separation distance, and thus, the height of the building of this case as stated in the facts charged within the restriction scope does not conflict with Article 41(4) of the Building Act and Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the court below acquitted the defendants, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance in the same purport. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of the opposite direction under Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)