The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the facts charged before and after the revision of the Building Act do not coincide with the facts charged, it is unlawful for the court below to permit the prosecutor to change the indictment.

The subject of the violation of the Building Act is limited to the owner, and the defendant is not the owner.

When a building permit is granted, a building report and permission for development activities shall be deemed granted pursuant to Article 11(5)2 and 3 of the Building Act. Since J, the owner of the building, obtained permission for construction of business facilities and multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the land located in the area E (hereinafter “instant site”) at the time of leisure from the doju market on July 13, 2017, it is lawful to change the form and quality of soil for which the Defendant executed.

A person who intends to build a structure, such as a retaining wall, in violation of the Building Act shall report it to the competent authority, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, on October 8, 2017, the Defendant, without filing a report on the construction of a structure, installed a sn beamline over a section of 15.54m from the snicker, etc. for the construction of a retaining wall on the boundary of the E land at the Snju City and C and D, and on the boundary of the E land at Snju City.

The court shall permit changes in the indictment to the extent that the identity of the facts charged is not disturbed.

(Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The identity of the facts charged is maintained as it is if the social factual relations, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in the basic point of view. However, in determining the identity of such basic factual relations, the defendant’s act and the social factual relations are based in mind with the function of the identity of such facts, and the normative elements should also

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1438, May 14, 1999). They return to the instant case and health class.