2. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, found the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant’s wife E obtained permission to engage in an act in a development restriction zone from April 21, 2012 to April 21, 2013 as to the instant land. However, the permitted act is limited to “average 80 tons of construction materials”; ② The Defendant’s act of installing a container claimed as fit in accordance with the above permission is limited to “the average 80 tons of construction materials”; ② the container is installed in the surface space and toilets; the gate is divided into one, 6, 4, and the roof of the front door, the window, 4, and the housing pattern were installed; the electric and water facilities were installed and used as the main, kitchen, decoration, office volume, air condition, and air condition manager installed with air condition (see Articles 7 and 8 of the investigation records). Thus, the Defendant’s act of installing a container is not sufficient to recognize the construction materials thereafter beyond the permitted level.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal of this case by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.