Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Any person who conducts or intends to conduct business other than manufacturing business or manufacturing business in an industrial complex shall conclude a contract for occupancy with a management agency, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not enter into the above occupancy contract, and instead, from July 1, 2017 to March 16, 2018, the Defendant leased approximately 660 square meters of the company’s site (industrial facility site) from C (representative D) located in the Daegu-gu Seo-gu B, Daegu-gu from July 1, 2017 to March 16, 2018, and installed approximately 390 square meters of the company’s site (industrial facility site) and carried out the business of extracting virtual currency “E

Accordingly, the defendant did not conclude a contract for occupancy with a management agency in an industrial complex and operated business other than manufacturing business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Confirmation of whether or not the business of extracting virtual currency in an industrial complex, instruction for control, and notification of the current status of the extraction site of virtual currency;

1. Business registration certificate (E) and B/C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to photographs of virtual currency mining plants);

1. Relevant Article 52 (2) 5 and Article 38 (3) and (1) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of fines;

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

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1))(Article 62(1)) of the Criminal Act provides that a contract for occupancy with a lessor has been entered into with a lessor who has ceased to operate a factory at present, and a contract for occupancy was not entered into with a lessor. This is due to the legal uncertainty of the Defendant, which is not highly likely to be subject to criticism (Article 62(1)(Article 6

The occurrence of this case is attributable to the negligence on the part of the management corporation.