The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant-owned house (hereinafter “instant building”) did not have a ground plan on the instant building, and there was no construction line on the dead-end road (hereinafter “instant road”) indicated in the facts charged, and there was no intention or negligence that the Defendant violated the restriction on construction under the construction line.

2) The steel fence with a height of 1.8 meters installed by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant fence”) is not “the fence” subject to restrictions on construction according to the building line under Article 47(1) of the Building Act.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact : (a) Whether a building line exists and whether a building line exists and whether a building exists with intent or negligence by violating the Building Act (Article 46(1) of the Building Act) is the line to which a building can be constructed on the part adjacent to a road (hereinafter “building line”) is the boundary between the site and the road.

However, if the width of a road does not reach the required width under Article 2(1)11 [C] of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381, May 31, 191; hereinafter “former Building Act”), the line set at the horizontal distance from the center line of the road by one half of the required width shall be the construction line, and if there is slope, river, railroad, track site or others similar thereto on the opposite side of the road, the line at the horizontal distance amounting to the required width from the road boundary line on the side where the slope is located shall be the construction line, and in the corner of the road, the line prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be the building line.

Article 2 (1) 15 of the former Building Act, which was enforced at the time of the building permit of this case, provides that "road" (Article 30 (1) of the former Building Act provides the same contents. On the other hand, Article 2 (1) 15 of the former Building Act, which was enforced at the time of the building permit of this case, shall not be less than four meters in width where pedestrians and automobiles can pass