개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is consistent to the purport that “the Defendant was required to embling in Gwangju City E, F, and G at the Defendant’s request,” and there was a fact that the Defendant prepared a written petition to the effect that the Defendant was a person who engaged in the alteration of the form and quality of the instant case and submitted it to the competent authority, and the content of the Defendant’s change in the form and quality of the instant facts charged, despite being found guilty of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment
2. Determination
(a) A person who intends to carry out an act of constructing a building, altering the purpose of use, installing a structure, changing the form and quality of land, cutting bamboo and trees, dividing land, piling up goods, or piling up goods in a zone where a public contest with B of this part of the facts charged is restricted in the crime development of a public contest with B;
On January 2016, the Defendant, in collusion with B, laid the form and quality of the concrete pipe laid underground without obtaining permission from the competent authority, in Gwangju City E, F, and G, which is a zone subject to the border development restriction.
2) A 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 without obtaining permission from the competent authorities having jurisdiction over the sole crime of the defendant shall comply with the order of the competent authorities to suspend the construction, or to remove, close, rebuild or relocate the buildings, structures, etc., or to take other necessary measures.
A) On February 2, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate an original form and quality change as stated in paragraph (1) from the head of an Eup/Myeon around February 2, 2016, by February 17, 2016, but did not comply with the corrective order.
B) On February 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to reinstate the original form and quality of an act identical to that described in paragraph (1) from the head of an Eup/Myeon around February 29, 2016, by March 21, 2016, but did not comply with the corrective order.
B. The lower court’s judgment.