건축법위반등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts is Defendant B (hereinafter “B”).
) Construction of metal structure manufacturing plant (hereinafter “instant construction”)
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable and unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were completed, and before using the instant factory building, Defendant B accused of the fact that the said factory building was modified and executed without permission, and thus, he performed considerable care and supervision in order to prevent the representative’s violation of the instant Building Act. (2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's determination of mistake of facts as to Defendant A's assertion of mistake of facts duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, Defendant A was the representative director of Defendant B at the time of the change of the design and alteration of the form and quality, and most of the shares were held at the time of the change of the design of this case, Defendant B's executive officers at the time of this case were only R with Defendant A, Defendant A was merely a person who invested in the fund in relation to the establishment and operation of Defendant B from among H who was in charge of financial affairs in Defendant A, R and Defendant B, and who was in charge of general affairs in relation to the construction of this case, Defendant A was merely a person who was directly involved in the loan process of the financial institution in relation to the construction of this case, and the payment of construction cost seems to have been made through Defendant A. According to the documents submitted by Defendant B's present representative director, who filed a complaint against the violation of this case with Pyeongtaek-gun, and Defendant A entered into a design and supervision