The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 27(2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a person acting as an agent pursuant to Article 27(1) of the same Act shall report in writing the results of on-site investigation, inspection, or confirmation to the permitting authority, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Article 109 of the same Act provides that a person who makes a false report pursuant to Article 27(2) of the same Act shall be punished not only on the height of the building pursuant to Article 60 of the former Building Act, but also on the number of matters indicated in the building permit, investigation, or inspection report, where a person files a false report. In accordance with Article 27(1) of the former Building Act, the defendant acting as an agent on behalf of the defendant prepared a false report with the boundary (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”) abutting on the south side of the instant building site and prepared a false report on the construction permit and its design report.

In addition, the instant case is suspected of manipulating the height of the land itself in order to avoid the altitude limit, and thus, the Defendant’s failure to indicate the intent to correct or correct the portion erroneously indicated in the design drawing constitutes a case of false report under Article 109 of the former Building Act, even though it was not indicated in the building permit, investigation and inspection protocol, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the error of indicating the ground surface of neighboring land was not related to the violation of Article 60 of the former Building Act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts