The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it cannot be deemed that there was an obligation to install a parking lot to the part illegally extended, the lower court convicted the Defendant of violating the Parking Lot Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. Relevant legal principles 1) The Parking Lot Act was enacted for the purpose of facilitating automobile traffic to ensure the convenience of the public by prescribing matters necessary for the installation, maintenance and management of parking lots (Article 1 and the Building Act enacted for the purpose of contributing to the promotion of public welfare by improving the safety, function and aesthetic view of buildings by setting the standards for site, structure and facilities of buildings and the use of buildings). Article 29(1)1 of the Parking Lot Act does not punish the act of not installing an annexed parking lot itself, but rather punish the act of constructing or installing facilities without installing an annexed parking lot. Whether the facilities are legitimate under the Building Act is not a separate issue. It is not a matter of whether the size of an annexed parking lot under Article 6 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act or attached Table 2 is determined based on the size of facilities and the number of households, and not based on the size of facilities and the number of households under the Building Act, and it does not infringe on the safety of neighboring public parking lots by being illegally constructed or used without permission under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.