<Itaewon Accident> Hamilton Hotel representative fined 8 million won in first trial = South Korea

In Itaewon, South Korea, the representative of Hamilton Hotel, who was charged with building an illegal structure in the alley where the accident occurred and causing more damage, was sentenced to a fine in the first trial. Itaewon affair
This is the first such declaration in a trial related to the death. On the morning of the 29th, the Seoul Western District Court held a defendant Lee (76), a representative of the Hamilton Hotel, who is accused of violating the Building Act and the Road Traffic Act.
was sentenced to a fine of 8 million won (approximately 910,000 yen). Defendant Park (43), representative of the lounge bar "Prost", and defendant Ahn (40), the tenant, both of whom entered the Hamilton Hotel annex.
He was sentenced to a fine of 1 million won (approximately 110,000 yen) and 5 million won (approximately 570,000 yen). Hamilton Hotel's corporation ``Hamilton Tourism'' received 8 million won, Prost's corporation ``Distric''
was sentenced to a fine of 1 million won. The defendants are accused of building illegal structures such as iron panels in the alley where the Itaewon accident occurred, occupying the road, and causing traffic inconvenience.
It is. In particular, defendant Lee, the representative of Hamilton Hotel, built an extension to a building with a floor area of approximately 17.4 square meters in the alley where the Itaewon accident occurred, and failed to notify the Yongsan District Office.
During the process, the building occupied 14.5 square meters of the road in front of the building, and is suspected of violating the Road Act by disrupting traffic in the vicinity of the hotel, which usually has a large floating population.
Prior to this, prosecutors had asked Lee to be sentenced to one year in prison at a trial held in September. The defendant has committed violations of the Building Act and the Road Act by installing some illegal extensions.
Although he admitted the suspicion, he denied the charges, saying that the iron panels do not fall under the category of fences under the Building Act and it is not clear whether they constitute a road violation.
Today's court stated that ``the Building Act does not provide any provisions regarding the obligation of fences,'' and that ``the law
In cases where there are no definitions or regulations regarding terms used in a document, they should in principle be interpreted according to their generally accepted meanings, such as dictionary definitions.
In addition, ``(combining dictionary definitions, etc.), the fence in this incident was used to block outside access to the hotel, or to block access to outside facilities.
It was erected in a part of the interior space along the boundary of the land for purposes such as protection, and it falls under the category of a fence under the Building Act.''
The Trial Chamber stated, ``As a result of this crime, former road width of more than 6 meters was reduced by approximately 3.2 meters.
It is expected that it will take a considerable amount of time for people to pass through the road due to the narrowing of the road.'' However, the statement continued, ``The defendants have generally shown signs of admitting to the charges related to this incident, such as demolishing buildings.''
" The court further added, ``Defendant Park and District Co., Ltd. temporarily built an extension before Halloween, and occupied the road for a short period of time.''