Defendants are not guilty.

Defendant A is the outside of the interference, and Defendant B is the owner of the D Building in the prime city (hereinafter “instant building”).

In order to change the use of a building, permission from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be obtained.

Nevertheless, when transferring and using the ownership of the above domicile on May 7, 2012, business facilities (offices) were used as facilities of religious assembly without obtaining permission from the competent market for the first floor to fourth floor of the above domicile until now.

Judgment

A prosecutor filed a public prosecution by applying Article 112(3) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) which is a so-called joint penal provision to Defendant B, the owner of the building, and Defendant A, the offender, respectively.

However, Article 108 (1) of the former Building Act provides that a person who has changed the purpose of use of a building without permission under Article 19 (2) of the same Act shall be punished, and Article 112 (3) of the same Act provides that "if a representative, agent, employee or other worker of a corporation commits an offense under Articles 107 through 111 in connection with the business of the corporation, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions," and there is no express provision as to whether the above joint penal provision is applied to an unincorporated association, and therefore, in principle, the unincorporated association shall not be punished under Article 112 of the same Act, and further, a person employed by an unincorporated association commits an offense."

individual members of an unincorporated association are in the status of "individual" under section 112 of the same Act.

shall not be punished for such reasons.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do3325 delivered on July 28, 1995). Defendant in this case.