All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding that Defendant A installed steel plates on the steel frame columns inside the 1 Dong and 3 floors of the factory of this case does not constitute extension under the Building Act.

B. The punishment of the lower court (each of the Defendants 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the term "extension" means an increase of the building area, total floor area, or height of a building within the site where the existing building is located. According to Article 119 (1) of the Building Act, the term "building area" means the horizontal projected area of the part enclosed by the centerline of the outer wall of the building (main sentence of subparagraph 2), the term "floor area" means the horizontal projected area of the part enclosed by the centerline of the wall, column, or other similar division as part of each floor or part of the building (main sentence of subparagraph 3), and the term "total area" means the total floor area of each floor (main sentence of subparagraph 4).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant A installed steel plates connected to the steel 1-dong, 357 square meters inside the factory of this case and 34 square meters inside the 84 square meters inside the factory of this case, and installed steel plates, and used various materials on the steel board actually above the steel board for the purpose of piling up various materials on the steel board. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it shall be deemed as an extension under the Building Act as it increased the total floor area of each of the above factories to the extent of the steel board area.

We do not accept this part of the Defendants’ assertion.

3. A favorable circumstance is that Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment in excess of the same criminal record and fine, etc., in determining the unfair argument of sentencing.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was extended illegally by Defendant A with a total of 849 square meters without permission from the competent authorities.