A. Although the Defendant, at the request of a construction supervisor for correction, made a supplement and re-proving, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Building Act among the facts charged in this case.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (amounting to 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, in particular E’s police and each statement at the court of the lower court, the Defendant, despite being requested by the supervisor E of the construction project to correct the distribution of the steel bars in line with the design books, is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant voluntarily proceeded with the follow-up process of concrete theory without complying with this request.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of mistake of facts.

B. In full view of all the facts that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable, and the motive, means, and consequence leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s age, the criminal records, and the environment, together with all the circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.