The alteration of use under the Building Act includes not only a tangible alteration of use of a building, but also a continuous use by a successor to a building that has already been altered for that altered purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1647, Sept. 22, 1992; 2005Do4592, Sept. 29, 2005). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “change of use”

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.