1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant extended the rooftop floor of the instant house without permission.

The judgment of the first instance court which judged that this part of the facts charged was guilty was maintained.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination

However, as alleged in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

There is no violation of law by exceeding the limit or by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 19(5) of the Building Act.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The lower court held that the Defendant, the owner of the instant house among the facts charged in the instant case, created the underground floor.

Three rooms shall be installed with partitions on a 85.44m2 in the underground floor, even after reporting as employment roads.

for each room, the portion that the unauthorized use of the toilets and toilets was changed for residential use.

The defendant changed the warehouse, which is an accessory facility to the house of this case, to the room of the warehouse of this case

(2) If a report is required not to fall under the change of use between the facility groups prescribed in paragraph (2) of this section;

For the reason that the defendant was not guilty.

B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) Article 2(2)1 and 18 of the Building Act concerning the purpose of a building is an independent house and a warehouse.

The detailed use of a building for each use shall be determined by the Presidential Decree.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25786, Nov. 28, 2014) is amended accordingly.

Articles 3-4 [Attachment Table 1] 1 and 18 of the Act shall be limited to a building belonging to a detached house.

A detached house, multi-user house, multi-family house, diplomatic mission, and building belonging to warehouse facilities shall be a warehouse, loading and unloading place, water

The respective provisions of the Act on the Development and Operation of Facilities include a logistics terminal and a collection and delivery facility.

In addition, the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that the same shall apply.

19 (2) 2, a person who intends to alter the purpose of use of a building, the use of which has been approved pursuant to Article 22.

lower group of the use of a building that falls under any subparagraph of paragraph (4).

The number referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) is larger than the facility group of the building to which the purpose of use is to be changed)

section 4 of the same section provides that a report shall be filed in case of a change to the purpose, and that section 4 of the same section provides that

If the group of industry, etc. is defined in subparagraph 2, and the group of residential business facilities under subparagraph 8, respectively;

the detailed uses of buildings falling under each facility group shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and such use shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Pursuant to Article 14 (5) 2 and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, warehouses falling under any of the facility groups of industries, etc.

One of the facilities and residential business facilities group is the independent house, respectively.

2) Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals: ① The instant housing is July 2012.

30.Woman's 116.95m of underground floor(116.95m) "warehouse", 107.71m of ground(107.71m of ground and 104.64m of ground(104m of ground).

(2) The husband of the owner D of the instant house, however,

Defendant, without filing a report after the approval for use, has been divided into three partitions, and each partitions is divided into the first floor.

A door shall be installed in a remote area and a board, and a toilet, scam, etc. shall be installed in a residential road;

the construction work has been executed so that it may be available.

Examining these facts in light of the relevant laws and regulations, the Defendant’s original Enforcement Decree of the Building Act

The first floor underground floor that has been approved for use as a warehouse falling under any warehouse facilities referred to in Article 14 (5) 2.

the purpose of subparagraph 8 of the same paragraph shall be deemed to have been changed to a single house that falls under subparagraph 8 of the same paragraph, and this case shall be

The use of buildings belonging to the facility group of industry, etc. under Article 19 (4) 2 of the Livestock Industry Act shall be subordinate soldiers;

As it constitutes a change of the purpose corresponding to the residential business facility group in 8, this constitutes the case.

A report of change of use shall be made.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on this part of the facts charged.

Since the court below acquitted the defendant, the legal principle on the report of change of use under the Building Act.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

for the purposes of this chapter.

3. Scope of reversal

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed, and the guilty part of the judgment below

As seen earlier, the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the ground of appeal.

The violation of the Building Act due to the unauthorized extension and the unauthorized alteration of use.

Since the violation of the Building Act due to the violation of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is a concurrent crime, the judgment of the court below

The part of conviction shall also be reversed together with the non-guilty part.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee Dong-won