However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

[2015 Highest 797] B was the actual representative of the E-C (former representative D and Defendant B’s wife) and had obtained permission for the extraction of aggregate from the head of E-Gun around July 19, 201, and had been engaged in the extraction of aggregate in the land extraction site (hereinafter “instant aggregate extraction site”) located outside 22 parcels of all south F from around 20 to March 30, 2015. The Defendant was appointed as a public official of E-Gun on January 5, 198 and served as the E-Gun Safety Construction Division (former Safety Construction Division) from around May 1, 2013 to August 19, 2014, and had been working in the E-Gun finance and the collection system.

B At the time of obtaining the above permission to extract aggregate from the head of E/Gun around July 19, 2014, B obtained the permission to extract aggregate on the condition that “the flag marked in the aggregate extraction area shall be firmly installed at a distance of 20 meters, the boundary flag shall not be damaged, and the boundary flag shall not be damaged, and the site management shall be kept outside the boundary flag so as not to be red, and the flag at the time of finial shall be deemed to be the extraction outside the aggregate extraction area. The depth of the aggregate extraction site shall be adjusted within five meters to ensure the safety of the adjoining road (agriculture).”

However, even though the construction of the boundary flag was entirely damaged on October 2013, B extracted aggregate from November 2013 to November 201, 2014 without installing a boundary flag, B extracted aggregate from the boundary of a permitted area to approximately two meters, and extracted aggregate from Jun. 2014 to Nov. 201, 2014 by excavating up to 17 meters from the depth of excavation, which is a condition of permission, from Jun. 2014 to Nov. 2014.

After all, B collected aggregate from approximately 100,606 cubic meters in violation of the permitted collection area and conditions of permission.

The defendant from August 2013 to August 2013

9. The aggregate extraction ground of this case reveals that (a)C’s side did not install a boundary flag in violation of the terms and conditions of permission, and (b) on September 4, 2013, “ thorough implementation of the terms and conditions of permission for aggregate extraction” on the side of the ICC.