When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

No person shall use or take profits from State property without following the procedures and methods prescribed by Acts.

Nevertheless, from around 2010 to August 2016, the Defendant installed a building to use the state-owned land for agriculture without obtaining permission from the competent authority, on a ditch of about 54 square meters of the state-owned land located in the Yongsan-si District C from around 2010 to around 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Two copies of a certificate of all registered matters, a certified copy of the register, and a land register;

1. Division of the results of cadastral survey;

1. A written approval to use agricultural infrastructure for purposes other than agricultural infrastructure, a detailed statement of receipt, and payment details of electricity charges;

1. Court rulings (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu64967), and sentences (Supreme Court Decision 20182 31160)

1. Determination as to the assertion by the relevant defendant and defense counsel

1. The summary of the assertion 1) The place where the Defendant installed a building is not the case where the State owned the Suwon-si District C (hereinafter “instant land”) but the case where the Simsi-si E is the case where the State owns the building.

2) Even if the Defendant occupies land written in facts constituting an offense, he/she obtained approval for use for purposes other than agricultural infrastructure from the tolerance market since 2009, and since a building installed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) constitutes “farmers” as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, it would be in accordance with lawful procedures and methods.

3) Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes a constituent element, the Defendant asked a viewing public official of the Republic of Korea in 2010 whether he/she can install a farming catus, and at the time, he/she used the catus from a public official.

Inasmuch as “the construction of the Defendant’s building stated in the facts constituting the crime was permitted, there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendant’s construction of the building was permissible by the statute, and that there was such belief.

2. Attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. Determination 1) The allegation that a private person occupies land.