All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant sought a public official in charge of the competent authorities’ change of the use of the instant annexed parking lot from the point of view of whether it is possible to operate retail stores at the said place, and submitted necessary documents, such as a public property loan contract, and obtained business permission, according to the direction of the public official in charge.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 3,00,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, without reporting to the competent authority, changed the use of the instant annexed parking lot and used it for purposes other than the parking lot. (2) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the Defendant did not report to the competent authority and changed the use of the instant annexed parking lot and used it for purposes other than the parking lot. It is evident that such act is in violation of Articles 108(1) and 19(2)2 of the Building Act and Articles 29(1)2 and 19-4(1) of the Parking Lot Act at the time, and is punished.

3) The Defendant asserts to the effect that he/she did not err because he/she submitted necessary documents and obtained business permission according to the public official’s guidance. However, where punishment is not imposed pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Act, it does not mean a simple site of law, but rather means an act which constitutes a general crime, but in his/her special circumstances, he/she is aware that he/she does not constitute a crime due to a mistake and that there is a justifiable reason in recognizing the same (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15260, Oct. 13, 2011).