The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the scenario) explicitly states that the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) excludes “private teaching institutes under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons within the scope of dance institutes” (hereinafter “the Act on the Establishment of Private Teaching Institutes”). However, the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act does not stipulate that “private teaching institutes under the Act on the Establishment of Private Teaching Institutes,” within the scope of “private teaching institutes,” and therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that a type of business constitutes a dance institute under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, regardless of the application of any of the Sports Facilities Act or the Act on the Establishment of Private Teaching Institutes.

However, the judgment of the court below rendered not guilty of the facts charged in this case under the premise that dance institutes subject to the Private Institutes Establishment Act are not included in dance institutes under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. This is a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning dance institutes under the Building Act.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant is the owner of a concrete building with a total floor area of 994m2m2 on the fourth floor located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon.

Where it is intended to change the use of a building, the use of which has been approved, to the upper facility group, it shall obtain permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on November 19, 2008, the Defendant changed the use of the building of 195.41 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among the fourth 220.38 square meters of the instant building, which is a Class II neighborhood living facility under the urban management plan, into a dance institute, which is an amusement facility, and used it.

B. In full view of the relevant evidence in the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, and recognized that dance institutes under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act do not include private teaching institutes subject to the Installation of Private Institutes Act, and that the instant building is a building used as a dance institute under the Sports Facilities Act and the Building Act.