A. In determining the facts, the Defendant did not report the change of the purpose of use of the first, second, and third floors underground (hereinafter “instant building”) among those buildings located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) due to the relation in which the first, second, and third floors underground were not known as illegal buildings. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent to violate the Building Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if an act of violating the Building Act on the defendant's household affairs on unreasonable sentencing is established, the lower court's sentencing (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court duly adopted and examined the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence, namely, the Defendant purchased the instant building and its site from D around March 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 8, 2014. The instant building consists of the first underground floor, the fifth floor, and the third floor in the building ledger. The first floor and the second floor in the underground, the third floor in the building ledger are registered as a multi-family house, and on January 31, 2012, the building was registered as a violating building on March 12, 2012 due to the “construction of individual cooking facilities within the announced source” and was revoked on March 12, 2012. Nevertheless, the first floor and the second floor in the above underground, the second floor in the ground and the third floor in the building register were constructed as multi-family house before purchase, and the Defendant appears to have continued to use the above part for the same purpose as the original building register at the time it was reported to the competent office building registry (see the lower court’s report).