A. The Defendant does not extend a building that is false.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a mistake of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since the judgment walls and entrance and exit doors on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts constitute a building stipulated in Article 2(1)2 of the Building Act, new construction of the previous walls and entrance and exit doors constitutes extension of the building. In a case where the extended area is 85 square meters or less, it shall be reported to the competent authority in accordance with Article 14(1)1 of the Building Act.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant made a wall using a prefabricated panel in a space permitted as an attached parking lot without reporting to the head of the Taeduk-gu Office on October 2013, and established the entrance on the wall. Thus, this constitutes extension of the building by the defendant without reporting to the competent authority.

We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the above facts.

B. The fact that it appears that the economic situation of the defendant's economic judgment on the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing seems not good is favorable to the defendant, but the defendant denies the crime of this case since it was in the first instance, and the defendant was punished once by a fine by extending the building at the same place as this case in 2007, and the defendant committed the crime of this case by extending the building again after removing the building.

The above circumstances and motive leading up to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc. are all the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments.