The appeal is dismissed.

2. It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; (b) the primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (c) the Defendant takes the restoration of the building in its original condition; and (d) a considerable number of multi-family houses nearby the time of the instant case where the expansion of the number of households was charactered through the so-called “inter-family house” and the permission-granting agency could easily detect it; (b) the Defendant did not control or take administrative measures at all; and (c) the Defendant was easily receiving illegal construction practices.

However, the crime of this case is likely to cause social problems, such as the fact that the defendant's multi-family house of 4 households is repaired as a multi-family house of 10 households and extended 4 households on the rooftop floor without permission, the building itself is at risk of collapse in the case of buildings illegally repaired or extended without permission, and the crime of violating the Parking Lot Act is likely to cause fire-fighting facilities, emergency equipment, etc., and fire-fighting facilities, etc. may not be properly installed or high combustible materials may be vulnerable to fire, and the crime of violating the Parking Lot Act causes serious shortage of parking lots in urban areas, causing inconvenience to pedestrians, and inconvenience to pedestrians. The defendant seems to have failed to restore all facilities up to now, and all other sentencing conditions such as defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, crime, and circumstances, etc. are considered to be inappropriate to the extent that the sentence of the court below is reversed.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.