건축법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. On November 1, 1985, a factory building located in B of the summary of the grounds for appeal (hereinafter “instant building”) obtained approval for use as a building of the first and third floor above ground on the ground of November 1, 1985, and the Defendant acquired ownership of the instant building on January 26, 2001, and completed the extension work upon obtaining permission for extension for the fourth and fourth floor above ground of the instant building and the first floor above E-dong (hereinafter “instant extension”).
However, the Defendant did not obtain approval for the extension of the instant case, and leased it to a person with no name and used it.
Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant had a third party use the second floor of the instant building without obtaining approval for use, and the facts charged that the Defendant had a third party use without obtaining approval for use for the extension of the instant building (hereinafter “the facts charged in the instant case”) are identical to the facts charged.
Nevertheless, the court below did not make a substantive judgment on the facts charged of this case and acquitted the facts charged of this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. In full view of the facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court determined that the part of the instant building, which was not approved, was the extension of the instant case, and on the other hand, the second floor of the instant building leased by the Defendant to C, was not guilty on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had allowed C to use the part that was not approved.
In light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, when examining the contents of the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.