The defendant shall be innocent.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The Defendant charged with the instant charges, as the owner of the land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, was assigned to the Korea Land Tribunal to perform the D State-do Construction Work, and was adjudicated by the Central Land Tribunal.

The Defendant did not deliver or transfer obstacles to the land to the project implementer until June 25, 2012, which is the date of expropriation, although he/she had a duty to transfer the obstacles to the land to the project implementer by June 25, 2012, or to transfer it to the outside of the project zone.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on the evidence in its judgment.

C. According to Article 43 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), a landowner or person concerned, or a person who is not a landowner or person concerned and has a right to the land or goods on the land to be expropriated shall transfer such land or goods to a project operator by the commencement date of the expropriation. According to Article 97 of the same Act, a person who fails to transfer or relocate such land or goods in violation of Article 43 is punished.

On the other hand, in light of the purport of expropriation compensation for fruit trees, which are obstacles under the law, and the principle of reasonable compensation or the principle of reasonable compensation, as to the fruit trees that the project implementer has obstructed the implementation of the project pursuant to Article 75(1)1, 2, 3, (5), and (6) of the Land Compensation Act, and Article 37(3) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Land Compensation Act, if the project implementer compensates for the value of the goods pursuant to the proviso of Article 75(1)1 of the Land Compensation Act, the project implementer acquires the ownership of the goods only without taking the expropriation procedure, unlike subparagraph 3.