When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant’s “D” as stated in the C’s application for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment, which is the main place of construction of multi-household housing (area 498m2) located in two weeks, is apparent that it is a clerical error in “C”, and thus, is corrected as above.

It is a person to whom power of representation has been delegated to all the construction works of the above multi-family housing, such as permission, construction, sale in lots.

No building owner may use or allow another person to use a building unless approved by an administrative agency for use by the building owner.

The Defendant had five households, including E, F, G, Hho, and I, use the above building in the middle of June 2016, when the Defendant was not approved to use as the competent government office, and had the lessee use the above building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness C and each legal statement of the J;

1. A written accusation, K’s written statement, an illegal investigation card, field photograph, agreement of transfer and takeover, real estate lease contract, family relation certificate, certified copy of the book, and a contract for sales agency;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 112(4), Article 110 Subparag. 2, and Article 22(3) of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 13785, Jan. 19, 2016); the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. As to the issue of the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that although the defendant was delegated by the construction owner C with respect to the management of the building, there was no fact that he was involved in the lease of the apartment building of this case, the apartment building of this case did not allow the use of the building which was not approved as stated in the facts charged.

In other words, C was under construction from L representative M, N RepresentativeO, and P Representative Q around February 6, 2016, as follows.