A. In the absence of knowledge about the construction, the Defendant was only entrusted to the construction businessman with the construction work, such as repair and extension of the instant building, and did not know the fact that the construction work violated the relevant statutes.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where punishment is not imposed pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Act or misunderstanding of legal principles, it does not mean a simple site of law, but generally, it is the purport that punishment shall not be imposed in a case where there is a justifiable reason in recognizing that an act constitutes a crime but, in its own special case, it is not a crime permitted by law.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15260, Oct. 13, 2011). Examining the record of the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the circumstance alleged by the Defendant constitutes a mere legal site and thus does not constitute any obstacle to recognizing the Defendant as guilty.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The instant crime of unfair sentencing is committed by the Defendant on the third floor of the ground owned by him without filing a prior report to the competent authority, changing the use of the first floor of the said building without permission from the competent authority, making a large-scale repair and expansion of the said building on the third floor and the rooftop of the said building without permission from the competent authority. As seen above, only the third floor and the rooftop of the said building are installed without permission from the competent authority, while making a large-scale repair and extension, only the 4th parking facilities among the required eight parking facilities, and the total number of households per parcel of the said building in the Class 1 district unit planning zone cannot exceed 4 households, and the height of the building cannot exceed 3 floors.