The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles (as to the violation of the Building Act), the structures installed by the Defendant do not constitute buildings under the Building Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 2(1)2 of the Building Act, “building” means a structure fixed on land, which has a roof and columns or walls, and facilities appurtenant thereto, an office, a shop, a garage, or a warehouse installed on underground or elevated structures, and other structures prescribed by Presidential Decree. Here, a structure fixed on land does not necessarily mean only a structure fixed on land and impossible to move, but it is not easy to move the attached structure separately from the land in a common way, and it does not include cases where the original purpose of use is fixed at a certain place for a considerable period of time, and is attached thereto.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do945 delivered on June 11, 1991). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are: (i) the Defendant installed 4 unit structures (hereinafter “instant structures”) as stated in the judgment of the court below in May 2013 in order to use it as retail stores, offices, toilets, shower rooms, and boiler rooms in the operation of camping site; (ii) the Defendant installed cement concrete building on the floor at a height of 10 cm above the floor; and (iii) installed the instant structures at a height of 10 cm; and (iv) the said structures cannot be moved only with ordinary people’s power; and (iv) the retail stores and one retail stores and two toilets and the shower rooms and the roof of the instant structures are wooden.