A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant sought the answer that the construction designer prior to operating the instant pent, constructed as a multi-family house and reported it to the competent tax office as a rental business operator and reported it to the competent tax office, and operated a penture by reporting the rental business operator and the telecommunications sales business to the competent tax office.

In order to operate a pent, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he was required to report the public sanitary business (the accommodation business) and did not actively provide administrative guidance at port. Unlike the general accommodation business such as the inn or the inn, cooking is possible, and thus belongs to a short-term rental business rather than a lodging business (the lodging business). Thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime that is permitted under the law, even if it did not make the said report in the case of a pent business, rather than a mere place of law.

In the case of active and misleading perceptions, there is a justifiable reason to mislead such misunderstanding.

Therefore, the defendant should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Code.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding." It does not mean a simple legal site, but it is the purport that a defendant shall not be punished in the instant case where he knows that it is generally a crime but, in his special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime as permitted by the Acts and subordinate statutes, it does not constitute a crime if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13868, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.).