A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Building Act and the violation of the Parking Lot Act, even though they are in a mutually competitive relationship.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (fine 12 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of violating the Building Act due to large-scale repair and extension of an unauthorized building without permission and the violation of the parking area due to the failure to install an attached parking lot is in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes, depending on the different form of the act and the legal interest protected by the law, so the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant did not have been sentenced to previous charges and sentence, and that all of the crimes were led to confession and reflect, and that the expansion of the number of households through the so-called “inter-family house” in a large number of multi-family houses near the time of the instant case is personality and behavior, and that the Defendant received illegal construction practices easily.

B. Meanwhile, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant's multi-family house of three households without permission is substantially repaired with ten households or extends one household and does not install a parking lot corresponding thereto. Considering the fact that illegal large-scale repair and extension of a building is caused by defective construction, not only the risk of collapse of the building itself, but also the risk of a fire may be vulnerable to fire, conflicts between neighbors due to lack of parking space, and no restoration to original state, the defendant's responsibility is weak.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, family relation, living environment, motive, circumstance and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is adequate.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.