The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, as the misunderstanding of the facts, could change the roll of rolls set up in the instant parking lot at any time, thereby impairing the original function of the parking lot.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

2) Since the misunderstanding of the legal principles has already been subject to three times or more by an investigative agency to a non-prosecution disposition (non-prosecution disposition) due to a similar case, there is justifiable reason to believe that one’s act does not constitute a crime under the law.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, even though the Defendant’s act constituted a mistake in the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

3) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the same ground

Considering the circumstances cited by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not maintain the original function of the parking lot by setting up a roller.

The lower court’s determination that determined the person is justifiable.

(1) According to Article 29(2)2 and Article 19-4(2) of the Parking Lot Act, a user of the relevant facility is subject to criminal punishment by not maintaining the original function of the attached parking lot so as not to interfere with the use of the attached parking lot, and the attached parking lot is not necessarily required to be used for any purpose other than the parking lot.

Use of the attached parking lot for any purpose other than its original purpose is punished by a more severe statutory penalty (a imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 50 million won) pursuant to Article 29(1)2 and Article 19-4(1) of the Parking Lot Act.

The Defendant set up strawls at the instant parking lot from October 2016 to February 2017, around 40 times, and strawls day.