The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, the Defendant’s construction of one warehouse (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) in Gangwon-gun Group C does not constitute a violation of the Building Act on the following grounds, or the Defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Building Act on the ground that he/she either did not constitute a violation of the Building Act, or constitutes an intentional act, or constitutes a mistake of law, or is a lawful act.

1) At the time of the construction of the warehouse of this case, there are no reporting system in Korea by the public officials in charge, and only there are permission systems.

On the other hand, a building report cannot be filed on the ground that a building permit must be obtained without conditions. Since the warehouse of this case is a farming shed under the Farmland Act, the warehouse of this case does not require permission to divert farmland prior to the construction, but does not inform about it. The defendant tried to report a farming shed in accordance with the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, but did not receive it properly, and did not inform the defendant of the area, etc. where the farmer can stop without any special procedure. Thus, the warehouse of this case did not properly inform the defendant of the construction procedure of the warehouse of this case, and caused the defendant to establish a warehouse without a building report.

2) Although the total floor area of the warehouse of this case was 32.757 square meters, it was mistakenly calculated with 33.48 square meters.

3) Although the Defendant made a verbal report, a public official did not accept the report.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as seen below is without merit.

1) When the Defendant constructed the instant warehouse, the public official in charge of D, etc., at the time of construction of the instant warehouse, prevented the Defendant from filing a construction report while requiring the Defendant to obtain an unconditional construction permit

There is no evidence to see.

(ii) farmland law;