In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Defendant

A is the driver of F Cargo Vehicle belonging to E Company, and Defendant B is the representative of E Company established for the purpose of transportation business.

1. A person who intends to use river water for the purposes of living, industry, agriculture, environmental improvement, power generation, transportation, etc. shall obtain permission from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as prescribed by Presidential Decree;

Nevertheless, around 16:30 on July 17, 2014, the Defendant, without permission from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, collected approximately KRW 5,000 liters river water from the eromatic river water in the erogical flusium of the Jeonsung-gun, a national river, using a F vehicle to remove fugitive dust at a construction site.

2. Defendant B committed the above violation in relation to the above work of Defendant B, who is an employee of the Defendant, at the above date and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement and part of Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A suspect interrogation protocol of the police officer;

1. Copy of the permit for river water use;

1. A standard contract for the lease of construction machinery and a copy of business registration certificate (E company);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the site of accusation and photograph;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 95 Subparag. 9 of the River Act, Article 50(1) of the same Act, the selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Articles 97, 95 Subparag. 9, and 50(1) of the River Act; selection of fines

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The judgment of Defendant B and his defense counsel on the assertion of Defendant B of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the above F vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) were leased to the Gyeongwon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) for a long time. The management and supervision of the said vehicle and its driver is against the said company or its field agent, and the said company should have obtained permission for the use of river water. Thus, A constitutes “employee or other employee” as stipulated in Article 97 of the River Act in relation to Defendant B.