A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an architect who operates a C Office in Busan Gangseo-gu.

No act of constructing or altering the purpose of use of a building in a development restriction zone shall be permitted: Provided, That in the case of a building to be removed due to the execution of a public works project, in the case of an inevitable building to be removed due to a disaster, or in the case of other local conditions, it is allowed to construct a building on the land adjacent to a development restriction zone, the village district or the village district, and such reconstruction right is allowed only to the owner of a house at the time of removal,

Nevertheless, around November 2014, the Defendant: (a) had E who owns Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D land, which is located in the development restriction zone, purchase the right to interest held by F; and (b) conspired with E to grant a building permit and registration of preservation of ownership by filing an application in the name of F without actual intention of construction.

After that, on November 19, 2014, the Defendant connected to the building administrative system by using a computer at the above C Office, and completed a construction report as if F were to newly build a detached house with a building area of 55 square meters on the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government D land, which is a development restriction zone, and applied for a building permit with design drawings, a written consent for the use of the site, etc. as a document attached thereto. The Defendant was granted a building permit on December 23, 2014 from the public official in charge that the F, who was the owner of the building, was mistaken for the actual owner

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with E to interfere with the legitimate examination of building permission by a public official in charge of building permission, and at the same time obtained building permission by fraud or other improper means.

In addition, the Defendant conspired with the actual owners who have acquired the right of relocation over 42 occasions from June 20, 201 to July 2, 2015, as indicated in the list of crimes, and obtained permission for construction in the name of the owner of the right of relocation by fraudulent means.