When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who has operated the "Catt" in the original city B.

On August 2017, the Defendant did not file a report with the competent authority on the “CMaart” and extended the total floor area of 4.75 square meters and one prefabricated panel of 13.25 square meters and the total floor area of 11.2 square meters and one mar of steel pipe of 15.68 square meters and one mar of steel pipe of 15.68 square meters without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. - Voluntary statements made after E;

1. - The ordinary building ledger.

1. - Current building status map;

1. - Each on-site photograph.

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (No. 20, 21 of the evidence list);

1. Article 11 of the Building Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts, and Articles 111 subparagraph 1 and 14 (1) 1 of the Building Act, the selection of fines for the selection of criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the defendant extended the building of this case under the direction of D, and D paid the cost of extension. Thus, the subject of the report of extension of this case is not the defendant but D.

The defendant is only a employee of D.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.

The defendant entered into a partnership business agreement with D, with the content that the defendant operates CMa, D contributes funds necessary for D, and the profits are distributed in 50%.

Pursuant to the above business agreement, the Defendant actually operated the feet by employing employees necessary for the business of the feet.

D paid the defendant the cost of extension of the Mart at the request of the defendant.

The defendant extended the Mart at his own expense as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant extended the Mart as a joint operator of the Mart.

As such, prior to the extension, the competent authorities shall be required to do so.