The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of the building C in Bupyeong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

Where an owner intends to use a building which has been permitted or reported under the relevant provisions for the building permit, building report, or building construction work for a temporary building, he/she shall file an application for approval for use with the competent permitting authority, along with a construction work completion document

Nevertheless, on January 18, 2005, the Defendant reported the extension of the building of the building of the Seoul-gu Seoul-si, Busan-si and then used the building to the lessee without obtaining approval for use of the building until December 29, 2014, which is the date of accusation.

2. Determination

A. Even if an administrative regulation is the main subject, “an accusation is required in accordance with the principle of the Criminal Act,” except where there is a clear provision or interpretation that criminal negligence is punishable.”

(2) As to the facts charged in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the judge should find the defendant guilty with evidence having probative value sufficient to make the truth of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662 delivered on December 24, 2002, etc.). B.

Examining the facts charged in this case and the provisions of the applicable law, there is no express provision that the criminal negligence is punished as well as no express provision that the criminal negligence is punished as well as no intention in the interpretation of the law. Therefore, even in this case, the defendant can be punished as intentional.

The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant, based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, are the buildings D and the above building on September 25, 2004.