The Defendants did not pay the above fine.

Defendant

C is the owner of livestock shed 659 square meters and 162 square meters in Y, which is the development restriction zone, Kimhae-si, and the Defendant A is a tenant who operates a wood shed by leasing 172.8 square meters among the above livestock pens and changing the purpose of use without permission of the competent authority. Defendant B is a tenant who rents 140.4 square meters and composts among the above livestock pens and operates a factory without permission of the competent authority.

1. Defendant C, on October 7, 2016, did not comply with the corrective order issued by the Kimhae market to reinstate the above illegal act until October 31, 2016.

2. On August 26, 2016, Defendant A received a corrective order to reinstate the above illegal act from the Kimhae market by no later than September 23, 2016, but failed to comply with it.

3. Defendant B, on August 26, 2016, issued a corrective order to reinstate the said illegal act from the Kimhae market to September 23, 2016, and did not comply with the corrective order to reinstate the said illegal act from the Kimhae market until October 31, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A supplementary statement of public officials;

1. Notice of prior disposition for voluntary restoration from an illegal act committed within each development restriction zone;

1. Current status and photographs of offenses;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing receipt of each official document;

1. The Defendants: Article 32 Subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas subject to Development Restriction and Article 30(1)1 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas subject to Development Restriction and Article 12(1)8 of the proviso to Article 12(1)8 of the same Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Consideration of the fact that Defendant A’s reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was restored to the stable, and Defendant B’s factory currently in use is restored to the stable, etc.