The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not know at all that “a reinforced soil retaining wall” was installed, which is different from the content of the previous permission (L-type retaining wall or natural stone piling up). Since the constructor arbitrarily changed and constructed without the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable for the court below to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① As indicated in the facts charged, G construction site site D, which actually constructed the instant building, explained the Defendant that he/she will proceed with construction by changing the “in a way”-type retaining wall or natural stone piling up “in a way” to “in a way,” as in the instant charges.

statement.

② A civil engineering design for the instant building was conducted on G construction site D and the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, found his office together with the reinforced soil retaining wall of “in the method,” as “L-type retaining wall or natural stone piling up” as stated in the instant charges.

statement.

③ The Defendant alleged to the effect that, as indicated in the instant facts charged, the execution businessman changed the “from the method” to the “mar-type retaining wall or natural stone piling up” to the “mar-type retaining wall or natural stone,” and the Defendant did not benefit from the above change. However, since the area of the site available upon such change is wide, it is difficult to view that the Defendant has no benefit from the change.

④ At any time at the time of the instant construction work, the Defendant had access to the site, and the content of the previous permission is partly “L-type retaining wall”, and partly “natural stone.”