No one shall illegally occupy or use agricultural production infrastructure without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, on October 201, the Defendant constructed a temporary building for storage of a warehouse store located in the section shop operated by the Defendant on a waterway located in B, Seoan-gun, B, 201, and continued to occupy and use the agricultural infrastructure by continuously occupying the building site around August 2016 and illegally occupying it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against the accused (two times, replacement of the accused);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (related to waterway invasions);

1. Article 130 (3) and Article 18 (3) 3 of the Non-Act on the Adjustment of Agricultural and Fishing Villages and the Selection of a fine concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (one day per 100,000 won);

1. In light of the purport of the Special Act on the Settlement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, which seeks to contribute to the construction of modern agricultural and fishing villages and balanced national development by comprehensively and systematically improving and developing the basis of agricultural production based on the grounds for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing) of the suspended sentence, and by promoting the enhancement of competitiveness of agricultural and fishing industries and the improvement of the living environment in agricultural and fishing villages, the crime of this case, which illegally occupied and used the ground of sentencing, is not good even after the Defendant constructed the provisional building above the number of

However, the place where the instant crime was committed is difficult to ascertain whether concrete stuffs installed on behalf of a bridge for building a waterway in front of the course do not appear underground and can be seen as the outer surface. Thus, the Defendant appears to have occupied and used the land on which it is difficult to understand whether it is a waterway rather than occupying and using a waterway with water flow on the ground.