A. As to the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below on the charge of misconception of facts, Defendant B, the lessee of the land as indicated in the facts charged, stated that Defendant B, the landowner, was directly involved in the packaging of some of the access roads, and Defendant B, the lessee, committed an act of changing the same wide form and quality as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case without the consent of Defendant A, the landowner, contrary to the empirical rule. However, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged

B. The lower court’s sentencing sentence (three million won of fine) on Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The summary of the facts charged against the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is the owner of Osan City D land (hereinafter “instant land”). Since the said land is a natural green area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, permission for development activities should be obtained and alteration to the form and quality of land should be made.

Nevertheless, Defendant A did not obtain permission for development activities when the date is unknown, and the form and quality of the instant land was changed by packaging access roads and site sites for construction.

Accordingly, the person in charge of the viewing and viewing work ordered Defendant A to restore to its original state until May 31, 2012, but Defendant A did not comply with the order to restore to its original state without justifiable grounds.

(2) In a case where a person subject to a disposition or an order to take measures as prescribed by Article 133(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “Act”) violates it, the disposition or order to take measures must be lawful to punish him/her as prescribed by Article 142 of the Act. The disposition or order to take measures is not deemed null and void as a matter of course.