The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s establishment of Mongolia is fixed, is not easy to move and remove, and it was settled for a considerable period of time in a certain place.

2. According to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Building Act, the term "building" means a structure settled on land, which has a roof and columns or walls and facilities ancillary thereto, viewing facilities for the public use, an office, a performance place, a shop, a warehouse, and other structures prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as an office, a performance place, a store, or a warehouse installed on an underground or elevated structure. Here, a structure fixed on land does not necessarily mean only a structure that cannot be moved because it is not always fixed on land, but physically, it is not easy to move from the land in a common way, but it includes cases where the original purpose of use is set up for a considerable period of time at a specified place, and it is attached to such a structure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do945 delivered on June 11, 1991). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant set up a Mongolian (5M 5M 5M) 4 Dong (hereinafter “the instant content”) composed of roof and columns in order to provide the telecomtocing place, and even if the defendant did not set the instant content in the manner of gambling on the floor, fin or spectrum, even though he did not have fixed the content in the manner of gambling on the floor, he did not amount to 34 km in 1,000 in 34 km in 1,000 and fixed the four columns in Mongolian, which are hard to move in if he included the steel bridge and components, and he did not adjoining trees.