The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant is not liable for the violation of the Building Act, since the use of the instant part was leased as the owner of the building, and it was not the owner of the building, but the use was altered.

(2) The Defendant did not have awareness of illegality of the instant change of use.

(3) Even if the facts charged in this case are found guilty, it is reasonable to view that the size of the offense is limited to the area of the assistant library except for the part cafeteria.

B. The first instance of the unfair sentencing decision (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, first, we examine whether the owner of the instant building and the lessor are liable for the unlawful alteration of use under the Building Act.

An alteration of the purpose of use, which is considered as a construction of a building under the Building Act, includes not only the alteration of the purpose of use in the same Act, but also the use for other purposes, and the alteration does not necessarily require a tangible alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do322, Apr. 13, 1993; 95Do1351, Aug. 25, 1995; 94Do2148, Dec. 22, 1995). The alteration of the purpose of use under the Building Act includes not only a tangible alteration of the purpose of use of a building, but also a continuous use by a successor of a building whose purpose of use has already been altered.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do1647 Decided September 22, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592 Decided September 29, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2630 Decided June 27, 2013, etc.). In light of such legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the instant case, the Defendant was underground located in the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-do D from H on December 4, 2007.