The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although a violation of the Building Act and a violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act are different from the subject of permission, the subject of the subject of the permission, and the procedure for the violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act, and there are different contents of intent, the crime of violation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and the violation of the Building Act for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the charges on the ground that

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is 1) Defendant A serving as the representative director of “B” located on 7 lots, such as D, G, and other seven lots from 2007 to 207. The above “B” building is located in the protected area of “B,” which is a State-designated cultural property located on the Gyeong-gun, G, Sung-gun, G, and Dong-gun (designated on July 5, 2010), and the permission of the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration is required to extend various facilities, such as a building. Nevertheless, the Defendant, from around December 31, 2010 to December 2, 201, extended the above “B” building and separate building from around 10, 2007 to 20,000 square meters, without obtaining permission from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration to 20,000 square meters above the previous building’s total floor area permitted to be extended to 1,492 square meters exceeding 27,000 square meters, and the Defendant obtained permission to 264 meters above the previous building height of 27.4 meters exceeding 26.7.4 meters.

(b).