A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles are inconsistent with the use of O-river water for manufacturing ready-mixeds during the same period as stated in the judgment of the court below, but as such, the Defendants continued to use O-river water as mentioned above because they did not know that the period of permission for use of the river expired because they did not receive notice from the competent authority that the period of permission expires. Thus, the Defendants did not have intention to violate the River Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a fine of two million won each) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) First, as to the situation at which Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) obtained permission to occupy and use the river for the use of flowing water on March 24, 2003, according to the health care unit, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On March 24, 2003, when granting permission to occupy and use a river for the purpose of using water for industrial use to secure water for industrial use (including installation of a structure) to the Defendant company, the Pocheon-gun paid the fees for using water for river flow, the fees for permission, and the deposit money for restoration from the original state to April 25, 2003, and notified the Defendant of the issuance of the permit. The notification period was specified from March 24, 2003 to December 31, 2007 (Evidence No. 5 No. 1,487 of the evidence record) (2) The person who intends to use water in a river area before obtaining permission to occupy and use the river area shall obtain permission from the management agency as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the person who intends to obtain permission to occupy and use the river (amended by Act No. 838, Apr. 6, 2007; Act No. 15138, Dec. 16, 2007).