All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part on violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act) and the other Yangyang-ju market’s district unit planning (hereinafter “instant notice”) announced by J on October 8, 2015 is completely prohibited from constructing multiple houses in a Class 1 exclusive residential area. However, the above notice becomes invalid for the following reasons, on the premise that the above notice becomes invalid for the following grounds, the Defendant’s change of the purpose of using a Class 1 exclusive residential area into multiple houses constitutes a change of the purpose of use that does not conform to the district unit planning prohibited under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① The instant housing is located in the Class 1 exclusive residential area, and falls under the “multi-unit housing” under subparagraph 1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act [Attachment Table 1], and Article 76(1) of the National Land Planning Act, Article 71(1) and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act [Attachment 1] permits the construction of multi-unit housing in the Class 1 exclusive residential area without restriction. However, the instant public notice completely prohibits the construction of multi-unit housing in the Class 1 exclusive residential area. This goes beyond the scope of delegation by the National Land Planning Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are superior statutes, and creates new prohibited items without any legal basis.

② According to Article 71(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act, which was newly established in 2012, the type, size, etc. of a building may be restricted by municipal ordinance of a Si/Gun’s plan is limited to buildings not prescribed in attached Table 2 [Attachment 2] through [Attachment 22] of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning Act. The instant public notice was prohibited even from constructing multi-use houses that do not fall under the foregoing.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the aforementioned new provision.