The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and E shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (Defendant A’s violation of the Building Act) is merely a trial work rather than the owner of the construction indicated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, this part of the facts charged ought to be acquitted.

2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment; ten months of imprisonment without prison labor; two years of suspended execution; six months of imprisonment with prison labor; two years of suspended execution); and two years of suspended execution) are too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants each sentence (defendant B is a fine of KRW 5 million, and the remaining Defendants are the same as the above) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, 1) The former Building Act (amended by Act No. 14016, Feb. 3, 2016)

c. Article 108(1) of the Act provides that “A project owner or contractor who constructs, repairs, or alters the use of, a building in an urban area in violation of Article 11(1), 19(1) and (2), 47, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, or 77-10 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won.

Article 11 (1) of the same Act provides that "A person who intends to construct or repair a building shall obtain permission from the Special Self-Governing City Mayor, a Special Self-Governing Province branch office, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

Provided, That in cases of constructing buildings with 21 floors or more in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, permission therefor shall be obtained from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor or Metropolitan City Mayor.

“The above provisions are provisions that punish the persons involved in the construction or substantial repair of a building without permission, and include not only the owner but also the contractor of the construction.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant constitutes a contractor under the above Act.