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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of Ctel (total floor area of 5,396.30 square meters, completion on December 24, 2019) in one parcel outside Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

No project owner may use or allow anyone to use a building unless he/she has obtained approval for use.

Nevertheless, on December 23, 2019, the Defendant, without obtaining a certificate of usage inspection from the competent authority at the above location, occupied the lessee in advance for 30 houses, such as leasing the ten-story D of the above building with the rent of KRW 180,000,000,000 to the lessee E, and used it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of public official and written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of supervision illegality reports;

1. Article 110 subparagraph 2 of the Building Act, Article 22 (3) of the same Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. It is reasonable to view that the use of a building prior to approval for use prohibited by Article 110 subparag. 2 and the main sentence of Article 22(3) of the Building Act, which is determined on the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, includes an act of occupancy prior to approval for use. It is difficult to view that the use of a building prior to approval for use is also included in the act of occupancy prior to the transfer of an article

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

On the other hand, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution against each of the prior occupancy activities in the office of officetel as a substantive concurrent crime.

However, the object of approval for use is not one room, but one room, and the defendant has occupied the lessee of each office without obtaining approval for use for the entire office building, and the defendant has continuously continued to conduct several acts falling under the name of the same crime for a short period under the single and continuous criminal intent and also the legal interest of the damage. Therefore, each act constitutes a violation of the Building Act, including one act.