Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

A. As stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged against Defendant A (De facto Error), the person who performed the instant 7-story extension work is not the Defendant A but the Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant A's violation of the Building Act is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. As stated in the facts charged in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, Defendant A, the owner of the franchise of this case, who removed and repaired the bearing wall of this case, was not Defendant B.

Defendant

B Since the prosecutor did not receive notification of the right to refuse to make statements at the time of preparing the suspect interrogation protocol, the suspect interrogation protocol (including a substitute) of the Defendants is inadmissible.

The court below, in the summary column of the evidence, found the defendant as "each prosecutor's examination protocol (including confrontationion) against the defendant," but it is clear that it is a mistake in each prosecutor's examination protocol (including confrontationion) against the defendant A.

Defendant

B The above argument is that since Defendant B was not notified of the right to refuse to make statements at the time of the second examination of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecution against Defendant A, it seems that Defendant B's second examination of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by Defendant A was inadmissible.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant A as violating the Building Act is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

① On September 1, 201, the Defendants exchanged the instant telecom (F. 358.1 square meters and its 7th floor) owned by the Defendant Company A and L Loans owned by the Defendant Company B (Seoul Seocho-gu L Building No. 6, Seoul), but Defendant B should pay KRW 210 million, which is equivalent to the difference in the value of each of the said real estate, to Defendant A until October 1, 201.