If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates a used motor vehicle export company of the trade name "D" in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. A person who intends to build a temporary building shall commence construction after reporting to the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in accordance with the retention period, installation standards and procedures prescribed by

Nevertheless, on April 2, 2013, the Defendant established one container, which is a temporary building of 33.25 square meters in total floor area, in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, in order to use it as an automobile export business office.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 111 Subparag. 1 and Article 20(2) of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014) on criminal facts

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not know that the Defendant should report the establishment of the instant container to the competent authority separately. Rather, the lessor of the instant leased site knew that the procedure was completed normally, and thus, did not have any awareness of intention or illegality.

However, according to the records of this case, although the lease agreement stipulates that all matters related to the permission to use the leased site of this case as the storage for a motor vehicle shall be responsible for the lessee, it can be acknowledged that the lessee Defendant installed the container of this case without permission without permission without examining at all the competent authority about the matters related to the permission. Thus, the Defendant did not have intention to violate the Building Act.

Since there is no perception of illegality or there is no perception of illegality, the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel shall not be accepted.