A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million by a fine of KRW 2 million, respectively.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

The Gyeonggi-do 1,676 square meters prior to C, 3,530 square meters prior to D, and 2,023 square meters prior to E are restricted development zones, respectively, and Defendant A is a farmer who actually occupies and manages the above C, D land, and adjacent G 9 square meters prior to G, who is the owner and son of the above E land, and F.

Defendant

A around February 2019, around 2019, requested Defendant B, a neighboring land owner, to change the form and quality of the above four parcels of land so as not to get a catch, and Defendant B agreed to do so and conspired to see a mixture of land.

Accordingly, on March 2019, the Defendants did not obtain permission from the competent authorities, and on the aggregate of approximately 3,291 square meters of land among the four parcels above, Defendant B changed the form and quality of land C, D, and E without permission by making a flat work by removing mixed stone and soil in accordance with the Defendant A’s request.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Accusations, business trip reports, illegal investigation cards, location maps, field photographs, land use regulation information service, and restoration photographs;

1. The statement of H (the defendants claimed that Defendant A requested removal of miscellaneous materials and used soil of this case to cover the land of this case, and that there was no change in the form and quality of the land or there was no conspiracy to do so. However, in full view of the following circumstances which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by this court, the defendants also recognized that the land of this case is a car-to-car, namely, the defendants can find that a mixture of soil, such as gravel, can be confirmed in addition to soil, and it can be confirmed that a variety of vehicles are parked after the flat work, and even if the photographs taken the process of restoration to the original state, it is difficult to view that the defendants' assertion is nothing more than merely covering part of the soil for the purpose of removing miscellaneous and mixed soil.)