건축법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the size of the facility does not fall under a building under the Building Act, and it is merely 27 square meters and thus excluded from the report under the Building Act, even if the area was not 27 square meters.
2. Determination
A. Article 2(1)2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same) which applies to the instant case provides that “a building” shall be construed as “any structure settled on land, with a roof and columns or walls, and any facilities attached thereto,” and Article 14(1)1 of the same Act provides that “extension/renovation of a floor area of which the total floor area does not exceed 85 square meters” shall be reported.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the structure of this case extended by the defendant is a building with a roof and columns fixed on the land stipulated in Article 2 (1) 2 of the former Building Act, which covers the above temporary building by setting up a pole and a frame on the steel, and setting up the roof of the Acryll on the roof of the above temporary building.
In addition, even if the area of the extended part is 27 square meters, it cannot be deemed that the report under Article 14 (1) 1 of the former Building Act is excluded.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9177 Decided December 26, 2012). Therefore, the Defendant’s act of extending the structure of this case without reporting to the competent authority constitutes a violation of the Building Act under Article 111 subparag. 1 of the Building Act, and thus, the lower judgment convicting the facts charged of this case is correct, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine.
Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.