Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Building Act, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

① The Defendant, upon receiving a suspect examination from the prosecutor, stated that “D did not report the commencement of the construction work, and even if it remains, D would have started the construction work to be responsible, so that, the Defendant instructed K, the constructor, to start the construction work.”

(Evidence No. 100). (2) While making a telephone conversation with the police, H stated that “The design drawing was confirmed by D at the design office as well as F (the Defendant’s wife that actually carried out the extension of the instant house) and all of the removal of main stairs on the first floor or all of the construction works are merely limited to the display of design drawings.”

(3) On May 2, 2013, F voluntarily removed the defective part of the old office’s removal of a building, which was controlled by the Gu office and the removal of an illegal building.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence to see the FF as opposed to D at the time, and instead, F promoted that D will continue to receive the building permit while discussing the building permit between D and D.

D In June 24, 2013, after submitting an application for a building permit, the extension permission was granted, and F continued to implement the extension work.

(4) F.