The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is Gangwon-do-designated cultural heritage, and the defendant is merely reconstructed after the F's legal party was transferred to the former, and the area of inspection has not increased due to the defendant's restoration work. Therefore, construction by the defendant's legal entity does not constitute an alteration of the current state of cultural heritage protection zones.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor shall revise the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the party, and the relevant applicable law shall change Article 35(1)1 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act to “Article 35(1)2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act” and add “Article 74(2) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act” to “Article 35(1)2 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act,” and the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained due to the change in the subject of the judgment by this court’s permission.

[Revised charges] No person shall engage in any act that may affect the preservation of City/Do-designated cultural and cultural environment without permission from the competent authority in an area for the preservation of a historical and cultural environment.

Nevertheless, for three months from May 28, 2012, the defendant constructed a building of the same temple and moved the location of the warehouse building in the F temple located in Chuncheon City, the preservation area of the historical and cultural environment related to D (Seoul-do Memorial H), which is a Si/Do-designated cultural heritage of the City/Do, for a period of three months.

As a result, the defendant did an act that could affect the preservation of City/Do-designated cultural heritage in a historic and cultural environment preservation area without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency.

[....]

3. Determination of the changed facts charged

A. Construction by the Defendant’s assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel is an alteration of the current state surrounding cultural heritage under Article 13(4) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act and Gangwon-do-do-designated cultural heritage.