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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in a used car export business under the trade name of “D” in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C.

Any person who intends to erect a temporary building with container or similar materials among temporary buildings for the purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as disaster recovery, entertainment, exhibition, construction work, temporary building, etc. shall report to the head of the Gu.

Nevertheless, on April 20, 2013, the Defendant constructed a temporary building of 36 square meters of a container for the purpose of using container for D office at the above place without reporting to the competent authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 111 Subparag. 1 and Article 20(2) of the former Building Act (Amended by Act No. 12246, Jan. 14, 2014) on criminal facts

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not know that the Defendant should report the establishment of the instant container to the competent authority separately. Rather, the lessor of the instant leased site knew that the procedure was completed normally, and thus, did not have any awareness of intention or illegality.

However, according to the records of this case, although all matters pertaining to the permission to use the leased site of this case as the vehicle storage are stipulated to be responsible for the lessee, the defendant can be found to have installed the container without permission without permission without examining at all the head of the competent local government on the matters related to the permission. Thus, the defendant did not have intention to violate the Building Act

It is difficult to deem that there is no perception of illegality or illegality.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel are above.