However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Any person who constructs a building, alters the purpose of use, installs a structure, changes the form and quality of land, etc. within a development restriction zone which has not been permitted by a competent authority, shall comply with an order issued by the competent authority to suspend construction, or to remove, close, rebuild or relocate a building, structure, etc., or to take other necessary measures with regard to such order.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on June 3, 2016, issued a corrective order to restore a field of 802 square meters in the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, which is a development restriction zone, to a place of business, with a steel pipe structure of 401.86 square meters in the concrete package, 49.22 square meters in the first floor, and a library of 24.78 square meters in the second floor to a restaurant; the building, a container of 24.78 square meters in the second floor, a container of 18 square meters in the building installed for a residential purpose, and a container of 18 square meters in the place of business to restore to its original state by June 30, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written investigation of violation and a summary ground plan;

1. Registers of each land and written confirmation of each land use plan;

1. Each corrective order;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to current status photographs and scaro photographs;

1. Relevant Article 32 Subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas subject to Restrictions on the Selective Development of Punishment and Punishment; Article 30 Subparag. 1 of the same Act; the proviso to Article 12(1) of the same Act; the selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant was punished by illegally altering the purpose of use or newly constructing the same place in the previous place, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the Defendant’s failure to restore to its original state in full upon receiving a corrective order in around 2014, and it is difficult to exempt the Defendant from imprisonment in light of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s obtaining a considerable benefit from the instant crime.

However, the defendant reflects this and restores part of the original state, and moves the factory to restore the original state.