Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Defendant

B A Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of storage and warehouse business in the wife population C, which is the owner of a logistics warehouse newly built in D and four parcels, and the defendant A is the representative director of the above company.

No project owner shall use a building or use it unless he/she has obtained approval for use.

1. On April 2020, Defendant A used the building by loading and storing things owned by B, a stock company, in the above logistics warehouse, the total floor area of which is equivalent to 54,991 square meters, without obtaining approval from the competent authority around the end of April, 2020.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed the above violation in relation to the Defendant Company’s business at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

The current status of permission to construct a written protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect F to some of the Defendants’ legal statements E, and the application of field photographing statutes.

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

(a) Defendant A: Article 110 subparag. 2 of the Building Act and Article 22 subparag. 3 (Selection of Penalty) of the Building Act;

B. Defendant B corporation: Articles 112(3), 110 subparag. 2, and 22 subparag. 3 of the Building Act

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The summary of the argument on the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the goods listed in the logistics warehouse of this case are not owned by the Defendant B Co., Ltd., and the storage area is merely 5% of the total area. Thus, the Defendants used the entire logistics warehouse of this case, such as the facts charged.

It is not reasonable to view that the responsibility for delay in the approval of use is permissible for viewing that imposes an exceptional procedure for approval of use, and that filing an accusation without a corrective order is unfair. As such, the Defendants violated Article 22(3) of the Building Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. According to Article 22(3) of the Building Act, the owner of the building is the owner of the building.