Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of evading compulsory execution, etc. at the Daegu District Court on December 10, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 10, 201, and on February 15, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment with prison labor in the same court on February 18, 2013 and became final and conclusive.

The defendant is obvious that “C” as stated in the facts charged of C in the judgment below is a clerical error in the light of evidence.

의 이사이자 실질적인 운영자이고, 주식회사 C은 토목건축공사업 등을 목적으로 하는 법인으로서 문경시 D에 있는 4층 규모 집합건물인 E건물 신축사업의 건축주이다.

No project owner may use or allow another person to use a building unless he/she has obtained approval for use from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on September 16, 2009, the Defendant, without obtaining approval for use from the literacy market, occupied the F in the above E-building 301 and G in the 401 as a lessee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of the police officer G, and a protocol of interrogation of the police officer;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Criminal records: Application of a copy of each written judgment; and

1. Articles 112(3) (main sentence), 110 subparag. 2, and 22(3) of the Building Act for criminal facts in relation to each of the pertinent Articles of the Act [the Defendant is an employee of a corporation, not himself/herself, who is a project owner, and thus, is an employee of a corporation. The main sentence of Article 110 subparag. 2 of the Building Act, not Article 110 subparag. 2 of the same Act, and Article 112(3) of the same Act provides that “actors” shall be punished. In addition, the aforementioned Articles 301 and 401 are deemed separate subject to separate approval. Since each use prior to the written indictment is deemed to constitute each crime by each building. Since the prosecutor omitted in Article 112(3) of the Building Act and Article 38 of the Criminal Act without changing the written indictment, it is erroneous

1. The Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;