건축법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable as the punishment imposed by the court below (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the Defendant shows the attitude of recognizing all crimes and committing wrong offenses.
Although trying to make a large-scale repair as originally reported, it seems that the instant crime was committed due to the fact that the building collapses or other circumstances.
The defendant had been sentenced to several fines before 2006, but there is no record of criminal punishment, and there is no old age and economic situation.
However, the legislative intent of the Building Act to promote public welfare by protecting the safety and environment of buildings, etc. is not small as the scale of rebuilding of buildings executed by the Defendant without obtaining permission from the competent administrative office, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the instant crime.
In addition, the lower court sentenced the amount of the fine notified in the summary order in consideration of the various favorable circumstances of the Defendant, as seen earlier.
In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, sex, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and result of the crime, etc. are added to all the factors of sentencing as shown in the previous theory, the sentencing condition of the court below against the defendant was changed in the first instance.
There is no new circumstance to see, and the sentencing of the court below is not judged to be unfair because the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.