The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, on March 15, 2014, leased a building located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and 98.50 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “No. 1 commercial building”) among the two floors of the same building, which is part of 145.30 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “No. 2 commercial building”) and operated a entertainment room. On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) leased a building located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) and operated a entertainment room; (b) operated a entertainment room through K office with permission from the owner of the building and the actual management of the instant building; and (c) changed the use of the building No. 1 commercial building to a amusement facility (the owner of the building and the actual management of the building, the father, and the O) and (d) No. 2 of the building No. 1 commercial building to a entertainment facility (the 2 commercial building).

On November 2015, the Defendant requested KO to change the use of the first commercial building to a sales facility (game providing business) from the amusement facility (referred to as an amusement shop). On the other hand, KOO given KO's permission, it changed the use through the same design office and started the operation of the entertainment room again.

Upon the occurrence of profits from the operation of the amusement room, the Defendant is expected to make a lot of profits available when expanding the amusement room by changing the purpose of the use of the entertainment room No. 2. On May 2016, while the Defendant requested the KNN to change the purpose of the use of the second commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial

It was true that the defendant applied for the change of the use to the second commercial building through the design office that requested the change of the use of the previous three times or more without the permission of the owner. However, in light of the situation that the first commercial building and the second commercial building on the second floor of the building of this case are opened without partitions, so it is sufficiently expected that the owner who allowed the change of the use of the second commercial building in the first commercial building would also allow the change of the use of the second commercial building, and that the change of the use of the previous three times has also been permitted.