SEVILLA, 30 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Court of Seville has confirmed a previous sentence, which sentences a man to 16 months in jail for a crime against land use planning for the unauthorized construction of a property “on undeveloped and non-legalizable land”, after the accused alleged that “he was unaware of the need for a building permit because he is from the countryside”, among other aspects put forward by the convicted person.
In this sentence collected by Europa Press, the First Section of the Hearing addresses an appeal by a man, against a previous sentence of the Criminal Court number 16, which sentences him to 16 months in prison and a fine of 1,260 euros, as well as two years of prohibition for the exercise of the profession of builder promoter and the demolition of what was built, for a crime against land use planning.
As detailed in the First Section of the Hearing, the sentence under appeal states that the defendant “stated that he received the plot as an inheritance in 1983” and although then “there was nothing built”, since he had “two children and had nowhere to go , got there in 2014”, alleging that “it only had a shed for the tractor and only changed the uralite roof”, because “in 2013 everything was already up”.
In addition, he alleged that “the water is drawn from a well and the electricity is requested from a cousin who lives 200 meters away”, denying that he had “extended the building” and assuring that “he was unaware of the need for a building permit because he is field”, so according to his testimony “he did not know that it could not be built there”.
In his court appearance, according to the Court, referring to the initial sentence appealed, the defendant defended that “he denied entry to the Civil Guard because he believed it was a scam and that he has not proceeded to any demolition, despite the requirements, because he did not has somewhere to go.”
In addition, the Court points out that the judgment appealed values ??that “the expert declared in the trial that the plot is for common use without residential use in accordance with the PGOU”, with which “it could not be built there and no license was interested, which It would never have been awarded.”
“The Civil Guard agents saw a building under construction, they identified the accused but he prevented them from entering the work, so they took photos of the exterior,” discovering that “there were bricks, sand, air conditioning, a television antenna, etc. “Adds the Court, invoking the contested initial sentence, which includes that the agents declared that” in the orthophoto it can be seen that in 2013 there was no construction and in 2016 there is already a small building under construction.
The initial condemnatory sentence, according to the Court, “reasons that it is evident that at the time of the inspection works were being carried out, as stated by the Civil Guard agents. That in 2013 there was no construction and in 2016 a building was already under construction, as can be seen from the orthophotos, as well as that it was being renovated and expanded when the agents inspect the place”.
“It is therefore uncertain that the work was finished a long time ago, as stated by the defendant. The series of materials and tools that the agents observe and photograph show that a work was being carried out,” says the Hearing of the initial sentence of the Criminal Court number 16.
In this sense, against the appeal of the convicted person, the Court explains that “in the present case all the requirements of the type for which the accused is convicted are met and the evidence carried out and correctly assessed in the sentence is sufficient to enervate the presumption of innocence”.
“There is a clear record of the unauthorized construction on undeveloped and non-legalizable land and a statement in court by the municipal architect; the defendant was the owner of the building that he was building and who was the one who promoted it, the defendant’s exculpatory statements being irrelevant in the sense that it is from the countryside and he did not know that a license was needed, when on the other hand he states that he did not build anything there, he only put uralite on the roof”, argues the Court.
Given the case, the First Section of the Hearing completely dismisses the defendant’s appeal and confirms “in all its extremes” the sentence.
