국토의계획및이용에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) was unaware of the fact that the Defendant would be 3.5m or banking at the time when he requested the company to embling, and the surrounding argument was also insufficient to recognize the fact that the above banking was illegal, and there was no intention.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) the circumstance in which the Defendant’s argument was previously filled up, appears to be, but is so.
On the other hand, there was no circumstance to believe that 3.5 meters of the surrounding discussion or Defendant’s argument was legitimate. ② The Defendant was retired after the construction company’s discontinuation of 2/3 square meters of discussions. From this perspective, the Defendant appears to have completed embanking work despite being aware that 3.5 meters or embanking work was performed, and ③ even if Defendant’s embanking was deemed lawful, it constitutes “the alteration of the form and quality of land for farming” as permitted under Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, even if the Defendant considered that embanking was deemed lawful, it is not allowed to change the form and quality of land, which is “the alteration of the form and quality of land for farming” under Article 51(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is “the alteration of the form and quality of the surrounding land has an impact on the opening, drainage, and farming work of the surrounding land.” In particular, the Defendant could not be deemed to have sufficiently affected the form and quality of the surrounding land due to embanking work.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.