If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant.

The defendant is the representative of incorporated association D, which owns C Building, which is an exclusive parking building in Busan Seo-gu B.

Where part of an exclusive parking building used for any purpose other than a parking lot is a neighboring living facility, the ratio of the part to be used as a parking lot in the total floor area of the exclusive parking building shall be at least 70%.

Nevertheless, between August 17, 2016 and February 24, 2017, the Defendant violated the rate of use of parking lots by using only 1,288.27m2, which does not amount to 70% of the total floor area of the building of the said C, as a parking lot, not exceeding 3,907m2.72m2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A criminal investigation report (Submission of a certificate of all registered matters), and a criminal investigation report (a certified copy of the relevant register and a report attached to the judgment);

1. A general building ledger, current building status, and current building status map;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 29 (2) 1 of the relevant Act and Article 29 (2) 1 and Article 2 subparagraph 11 of the Act on the Selection of Parking Lot for Criminal Crimes, and Selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant is subject to criminal punishment of a fine on the ground that he/she violated the ratio of parking lot use of the C Building building as indicated in the judgment in 2016, and the defendant's spouse, who is not an incorporated association that is the representative of the defendant, was holding the above building.

From 2012 to 2015, the spouse of the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment once a year for the same reason.

As such, the Defendant committed the instant crime again even though he was well aware of the fact that the use ratio of the said building should be observed.

However, the defendant appears to have used the above building in violation of the parking lot usage ratio in relation to the affairs of welfare organizations for persons with disabilities operated by himself/herself, and does not seem to have committed the crime of this case for profit.