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

On July 20, 2015, the Defendant changed the form and quality of land by reclaiming the pool in the reservoir with earth and gravel by 20 meters in length, 10 meters in width, and 6 meters in height without obtaining permission from the competent authority in the counter B, C, and D (hereinafter “instant reclaimed land”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of a certified copy of each cadastral map, aerial photography, and on the scene of violation

1. In order to prevent the collapse of livestock pens adjacent to the reclaimed land of this case, the Defendant demanded the installation of retaining walls or reclamation of the reclaimed land of this case several times in agricultural and fishing village to prevent the collapse of livestock pens adjacent to the reclaimed land of this case. The Defendant buried the reclaimed land of this case without permission for inevitable safety by the agricultural and fishing village construction

Therefore, it is illegal as it constitutes an emergency escape.

2. The “emergency escape” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with considerable reason to avoid the present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, to constitute “an act with considerable reason,” the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, the second victim must choose the method of causing the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the benefits preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the benefits so infringed, and fourth, the act of escape must be an appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13609, Jun. 13, 2013). However, according to the evidence, the defendant could prevent the collapse of the stable adjacent to the reclaimed land of this case without permission of the competent authority on the ground that such a method takes considerable cost.