The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor and fines of 2,00,000,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by fine of 7.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, three logistics warehouses of this case are limited to a structure with no walls on the front and back side, and even if two offices are operated and toilets are not a container stuff, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendants guilty on the ground that they are not buildings.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant violating building” is added up of three logistics warehouses of 566 m2, 36 m2, 2 offices, and 27 m2,000 m2.

The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment for six months, suspension of execution for two years, community service order 120 hours / Defendant B: fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the facts charged that the Defendants built five container stuffs, which are temporary buildings, without reporting to the competent authority. Despite the fact that the instant temporary buildings are subject to reporting, the lower court, on the grounds of the judgment below, applied the “application of the Act and subordinate statutes” to “Article 110 subparag. 3 and Article 20(1) of the Building Act, which requires permission from the competent authority,” and thus, such illegality affected the judgment. In this regard, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, despite the above reasons for reversal of legal principles.

3. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e.,: (a) Defendant A obtained a building permit to build Class A, B, C, and D neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) on the land of this case; and (b) the Defendant is designated as a natural settlement district, and the instant land is designated as a housing district; and (c) the housing (public notice source) is constructed according to the building permit.