Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

The Defendant is a person who owns a building with a 1st basement and a 4th floor area of 348.24 square meters in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The owner of a facility or a person responsible for the management of an attached parking lot shall maintain the original function of the attached parking lot so that users of the relevant facility may not interfere with the use of the attached parking lot.

Nevertheless, the Defendant knew that D, a tenant who leased the 1st floor of the instant building from October 2010 to September 2017, 2017, installed the 11.70 square meters on the parking lot attached to the instant building (1.70 square meters), and used it as a E restaurant, and did not maintain the original function of the attached parking lot without justifiable grounds, even though he/she knew that it was used as a E restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The accusation filed by the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

1. Dispatching the current status of registration (one to three vehicles), advance notices on violations of the attached parking lot, notice on the correction of violations of the attached parking lot, and urge the correction of violations of the attached parking lot;

1. Photographs and drawings of current status;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (informating certified copies of donations);

1. Article 29 (2) 2 of the relevant Act and Articles 19-4 (2) and 19-4 (2) of the Act on the Selection of Parking Lot for Criminal Offenders, and Selection of fines for criminal facts;

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 was that the Defendant used the parking lot for the building owned by the Defendant from 2010 to 2017 for different purposes, but failed to properly manage it.

However, the defendant does not directly use the parking lot of this case for other purposes, the defendant restored the parking lot to the original state after the prosecution, and the defendant does not commit such crimes in the future.

The punishment shall be determined as per the order, taking into account the fact that it is being taken.