건축법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case (e.g., the Defendant’s total nine households in one building as the owner, and the degree of the violation is serious. In light of all circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, the penalty (a year of imprisonment with prison labor for a fine of five million won (or one year), which the lower court rendered, is too unfasible and unfair.
2. The instant crime is acknowledged that the Defendant’s act of expanding the number of nine households in the instant building without permission, as the owner of the building “C and DDDDD,” around August 201, and as a result, the said building does not have to be installed a parking lot to ensure that the number of households per household is at least 0.5.5. As such, the number of households that the Defendant extended after large-scale repair to obtain economic benefits without permission is not more than nine households and the quality of the crime is not good. As such, the act of illegally expanding households is ultimately likely to undermine public welfare as stipulated in the Building Act.
However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant and would not repeat a crime; (b) the Defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of fine, other than the Defendant’s one-time penalty; and (c) the Defendant has no other criminal record; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., which are the conditions for the instant sentencing as indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentence is deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.