Requirements for acts of remodelling structures without permission falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 18 of the Public Waters Management Act

Any unauthorized reconstruction of a structure falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 18 of the Public Waters Management Act shall be limited to (i) it is officially used for public purposes and (ii) it is State-owned and (iii) it is not subject to the application or application of the River Act.

Public Waters Management Act (Article 2(1)1 of Article 4(1)1 of the Public Waters Management Act (Article 18(1)1), Article 2 and Article 10 of the River Act

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-il

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No2995 delivered on March 25, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as affirmed and accepted by the court below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of rebuilding the head of the judgment in the public waters located in 1 area of 50 Doocheon-gu, Yang-gun-gun, Yang-gun, Yang-gun, 1975 without prescribed permission was against the Public Waters Management Act.

2. Article 2 (1) of the Public Waters Management Act provides that "the term "public waters in this Act shall mean the water flow or water surface of the sea, river, lake, river, or state-owned state-owned water or water surface, which is public use, and is not subject to the application or application of Acts and subordinate statutes on rivers". In full view of the provisions of Article 2 (1) 1, Article 10 subparagraph 1 and 2, Article 81 subparagraph 2, Article 25 (1) and Article 9 (1) of the River Act and Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the River Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the river designated by the management agency other than the river to which the same Act applies, and the river shall apply mutatis mutandis to the river flow into or over such river, and a separate penal provision as to the reconstruction of river appurtenances from this quarter, and it is clear that the act of remodeling without permission falling under Article 18 subparagraph 1 of the Public Waters Management Act is public use and it is nationalized, and it shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the Public Waters Act."

3. In order to determine whether the defendant's act of rebuilding this case constitutes a violation of the above provisions of the Public Waters Management Act, first of all, the owner can not be identified in the ownership column of the new land registered in the forestry register on the ground of the land category No. 50, the defendant's new land category "the owner's unclaimed land was stated "the owner's unclaimed land," and the neighboring land's forestry map (record No. 124) or records No. 125 (record No. 125) did not indicate the land number of the above land, and the defendant's testimony cannot be seen as a witness's testimony as a new land category No. 50, which was registered in the forestry register No. 1977, Dec. 30, 197, on the ground that the defendant reviewed the above land's new land category "the owner's unclaimed land" and the land number of the above land was not indicated in the land's cadastral map (record No. 124) or 125).

4. Ultimately, the court below's decision that the head of this case was guilty of the defendant's act of remodelling the public waters under the premise that this case's water surface is the public waters, or the court below's decision was erroneous in failing to exhaust all the deliberation on the requirements of the public waters surface, or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the public waters under the Public Waters Management Act, which recognized this case as the public waters

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court (Seoul Criminal Court). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)