However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is the owner of a construction project that constructs a single house with a size of not more than 301m2, total floor area of not more than 233.05m2, and not more than 2,000m2 with a size of not more than three floors on the ground in the racing-si, which is an area

A person who intends to implement construction works with a business area of not more than 2,00§³ in an area where buried cultural heritage remains shall consult with the head of the local government having jurisdiction over the relevant area before obtaining authorization or permission for such construction works, and the head of the local government may, if deemed necessary, order measures necessary for preserving cultural heritage, and a person who intends to perform construction works shall not violate the above order without justifiable grounds, and shall not change the current state of an area where buried cultural heritage exists.

On July 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) obtained construction permission from the racing market on condition of “an inspection to be conducted by an expert on cultural heritage before the commencement of construction works”; and (b) conducted a witness inspection on four occasions on the following occasions; (c) according to the Naom’s opinion on the inspection of the excavation of buried cultural heritage as a result of each inspection, such as where the weather, mode, and depth of the unification era were discussed in the first, second, and third inspections; and (d) on October 10, 2016, the Defendant continued the said construction for two months from December 2016 without justifiable grounds even though the Defendant received an order from the racing market to preserve the current state and to excavate buried cultural heritage, which are measures for the preservation of cultural heritage.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the order of measures to preserve cultural properties without justifiable grounds, and changed the present state of the area where buried cultural properties exist.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, E, and F;

1. G statements;

1. On an accusation, on-site photograph, application for a building permit, consultation and inquiry about opinions, official notice of a building permit, official notice of the results of the investigation on cultural heritage presence, opinion reply following the notification of the results of the investigation on cultural heritage presence, and the application for a building permit.