Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the actual manager of the complete-gu D Building in the Jeonju-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, located in the “C District,” which is a district unit planning zone of the Jeonju Cultural Zone.

Where a district unit planning zone intends to construct a building, alter its use, or install a structure, it shall comply with such district unit planning.

Nevertheless, around February 1, 2013, the Defendant, even though the use of the first floor (42.215 square meters) of the above building was two-class neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) but, without undergoing deliberation by the Korea-style House Preservation Committee, leased it to E with the knowledge that E would operate a sales store of the trade name “F” in the above building, and changed the use to the first class neighborhood living facilities (stores).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of witness G and the legal statement of witness H;

1. A written accusation and a written statement;

1. Current status photographs, land use planning confirmation sources, and building ledgers;

1. An order to designate a violation of a district unit plan for the traditional cultural zone of the previous week (the first and second phases);

1. Determination (Modification) of an urban management plan for electric poles (Korean traditional cultural zone, district unit planning zone, and plan) and application of statutes approving and publicly announcing topographical drawings;

1. Subparagraph 3 of Article 141 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 54 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense (which changes the purpose of use in compliance with a district unit plan) and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant is not the actual manager of the building of this case, and it is not subject to deliberation as to the alteration of use in the use of Class 2 general restaurant for Class 1 retail store.

2. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant received delegation from G and H, the owner of the instant building, and practically managed the instant building from around 201, and five retail stores are located in the instant building. The Defendant concluded a lease agreement.