A. The relationship under Article 54(1) of the Building Act and Article 92 Subparag. 1 of the Urban Planning Act, which is a penal provision for unauthorized building activities within the urban planning zone, and whether the said provision may be applied and punished against an actor who is not the building owner (affirmative)

(b) Whether an act of construction different from the details of a building permit is included in the act of construction without permission, which is punished under Article 54(1) and the main sentence of Article 5(1) of the Building Act (affirmative)

A. Article 54(1) and the main text of Article 5(1) of the Building Act, which is a penal provision for building construction activities performed without permission within an urban planning zone, purports to punish a case where the subject of the act among unauthorized construction activities, which are punished under Article 92 subparag. 1 and Article 4(1)2 of the Urban Planning Act, intends to be subject to an aggravated punishment. Thus, it is interpreted that there is a special relationship with the above provisions of the Urban Planning Act. As such, only a violation of the Building Act is established with respect to the owner of building who performed such act, and a violation of the Urban Planning Act which is related to competition with the above provisions of the Urban Planning Act is not established separately, but with respect to the person who is not the owner, the said

B. Unauthorized construction activities within an urban planning zone punished pursuant to Article 54(1) and the main sentence of Article 5(1) of the Building Act include not only construction activities without permission in light of the purport of Article 5(1) and Article 5(4) of the same Act, but also construction activities which are different from the terms of permission even if construction permission was granted.

(a)Article 5(1) main sentence and Article 54(1)(a) of the Building Act; Article 4(1)2 of the Urban Planning Act; Article 92 Subparag. 1 of the same Act; Article 40 of the Criminal Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 75Do115 decided Apr. 27, 1976 (Gong1976, 9137) 81Do2464 decided Jun. 22, 1982 (Gong1982, 717) 90Do1219 decided Oct. 12, 199 (Gong190, 233)

Defendant 1 and one other [Plaintiff-Appellant] Defendants (Defense Counsel)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No347 delivered on May 14, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

Article 54(1) and the main text of Article 5(1) of the Building Act, which is a penal provision for building construction without obtaining permission from the head of Si/Gun within the urban planning zone, aims to punish an unauthorized building among unauthorized building acts punished under Article 92 subparag. 1 and Article 4(1)2 of the Urban Planning Act, where the owner of such act is a building owner, and thus, it is interpreted that there is a special relationship with the above provisions of the Urban Planning Act. Therefore, only a violation of the Building Act is established against the owner of such act, and a violation of the Urban Planning Act, which is related to the above provisions of the Urban Planning Act, is not established separately, but with respect to the person who is not the owner of the building, the above provisions of the Urban Planning

The court below's decision that Defendant 1's act of constructing a building of the foundation foundation without prior permission within the urban planning zone as a person in charge of construction affairs of the foundation foundation foundation foundation foundation foundation is a crime of violation of Article 92 subparagraph 1 and Article 4 (1) 2 of the Urban Planning Act is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to comply with the grounds alleged in the lawsuit or by applying the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act.

2. We examine Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal.

It is acceptable in light of the purport of Article 5(1) and (4) of the Building Act to view that an unauthorized construction act within an urban planning zone punished pursuant to Article 54(1) and the main sentence of Article 5(1) of the Building Act includes not only an act of construction without permission, but also an act of construction different from the contents of permission even if a building permit was granted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the above defendant's act of expanding a building permit more than the permitted area or constructing a building different from the permitted location and area constitutes an unauthorized building act under the above law is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the above law.

The argument of the theory is that such act is an object of the corrective order stipulated in Article 42 of the Building Act, but it is only an independent opinion and it cannot be employed. The argument is without merit.

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)