A. The wall of a utility tunnel stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not bearing walls, but merely repair and alteration of not more than 30 square meters, rather than dismantling the wall. It does not constitute substantial repair under the Building Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (the respective fines of KRW 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Large-scale repair” under the Building Act in determining the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles means “repair, alteration, or extension of the structure or external form, such as the columns, beams, bearing walls, main stairs, etc. of a building, as prescribed by Presidential Decree” (Article 2(1)9 of the Act), and a person who intends to make a large-scale repair must obtain prior permission from the competent administrative agency.

(Article 11(1) of the Act. On the other hand, with regard to the scope of substantial repair, "those specified by Presidential Decree" in Article 2(1)9 of the Act means "enlarging or dismantling a bearing wall, or repairing or altering a bearing wall with a size of at least 30 square meters" that does not fall under extension, renovation or reconstruction.

(Article 3-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (Article 3-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, the left-hand wall of the instant utility tunnel is merely a partition wall for dividing the interior space of the building. However, the right-hand wall is a valid wall of the building structure and can be recognized as a "proof wall" for the purpose of checking or transmitting the power direction, and even if the whole wall is not a part of the wall, it is reasonable to view that the use of the relevant part as a passage by entirely viewing both sides through the passage rather than the "repair or alteration" claimed by the defendants, and it constitutes a "breaking" of the bearing wall.

Therefore, this is applicable.