All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of a fine of KRW 10 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, the following facts are considered as favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant acknowledged the facts charged in the instant case and reflects his mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant, due to drunk driving in around 2016, imposed a fine of KRW 4 million on the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant, due to an unlicensed driving in around 2017, imposed a fine of KRW 1 million on the Defendant.

Meanwhile, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, where the defendant extended or dismantled the boundary wall between households in a multi-family house without permission from the competent authority, thereby increasing the number of three households into 15 households, and the nature of the crime is bad in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, and the fact that the defendant was unable to restore the multi-family house in this case, which was repaired without permission, to its original state, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Furthermore, considering the following facts: (a) there is no special change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (b) the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing as stated in the present case’s pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, circumstances, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 25(1) of the Building Act, in the application of the law of the court below, is the "Building Act" of Section 12 as "former Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 16380, Apr. 23, 2019)."