The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the misapprehension of the legal principle and the non-reported accommodation business constitute a single act as a natural and social concurrent crime, the lower court determined that the business constituted a substantive concurrent crime.

B. In consideration of the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as a fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant used 174 households of “C” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul from October 4, 2013 to July 22, 2014 as a lodging facility without permission of change of use from the competent authority, and the crime of violation of the Building Act, which used the lodging business without reporting at the same date and time, at the same place, is a separate crime with different elements of each element, and the form of each act and legal interest are different, and the basic facts are not identical. Thus, the two crimes should be deemed as a substantive concurrent relationship, not a commercial concurrent relationship.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that considered each crime as a substantive concurrent relationship is justified, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s primary crime is the first offender, and the Defendant does not seem to have committed the instant crime with a conclusive intent from the beginning, and the Defendant appears to have completed a report on accommodation business after the establishment of the instant crime, or to have been seeking efforts to initiate the procedure for changing the purpose of use, etc.

However, it is clear that the operation of the facility of this case was in violation of the current relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the size and operation period of the facility, and the economic benefits therefrom are considerable. In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, do not change compared with the original judgment.