The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that a competent authority asked the competent authority whether to permit the establishment of a temporary building of a container, which is a factual error, and the competent authority did not construct a temporary building without permission, since there is no ground to permit the establishment of a temporary building of a person residing in an improvement zone and it was so established and used in the match.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① the competent authority received a civil petition against a temporary building, confirmed the site, and issued a voluntary corrective order to the Defendant for unlawful matters. On January 4, 2013, the Defendant made a petition to allow the use of a temporary building, and ② the Defendant also stated in the police that “the Defendant was aware of the fact that he is required to obtain a permit from the competent authority upon receipt of a removal notice” (section 46 of the Investigation Record), it cannot be deemed that the competent authority allowed the Defendant to use a temporary building without permission.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.