If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

The defendant is a co-owner of Gangseo-si C Housing (total floor area of 527.33 square meters), and D and E are tenants.

If a building is constructed after obtaining approval for use from the competent administrative agency, no building shall be used or made available for use, unless such approval for use is obtained from the competent administrative agency.

Nevertheless, around August 2010, the Defendant occupied and used D on the second floor of the above building, and around June 2013, E occupied and used the third floor of the above building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Accusation against a violator of the Building Act;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of change of assessment);

1. Article 110 subparagraph 2 of the Building Act and Article 22 (3) of the same Act on criminal facts.

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order was the co-owner of the instant multi-household house as part of recovery of claims. However, the dispute with the land owner that the Defendant was unable to obtain approval for the use of the instant multi-household house due to the dispute with the lessee, and the lessee is the creditor of the Defendant to secure the claim. D appears to have not obtained any special benefits due to the instant crime, such as using the instant multi-household house for the management of the instant multi-household house. Of the instant multi-household house, the decision to commence compulsory sale was made on January 2014; the Defendant appears to have invested the Defendant’s share in the instant multi-household house; the Defendant was deemed to have invested the property before the construction of the instant multi-household; however, the current status of health as a basic living beneficiary; the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year for damage to public goods on or around December 199; and there was no criminal record other than the sentence of two years under suspension of execution; and