When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who has raised livestock by leasing the Seocheon-gu B (Am20,349m2) and C (Am29,077m2).

No zone subject to development restriction shall be allowed to construct buildings, change the purpose of use, install structures, change the form and quality of land, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not obtain permission from the competent Mayor, and without permission, changed the use of a general restaurant on the ground B on the ground of the date on which the date on 2014, to approximately 104.02 square meters per 104.62 square meters per 30 square meter per 104.62 square meter, constructed a religious facility without permission, and constructed a 11 square meter per 11 square meter, warehouse 60.5 square meters on the ground on the ground above the date on which the date from 2016 to 2017, constructed a 48.25 square meters on the ground of a religious facility without permission, and constructed a dog 30 square meters on the ground above the date from 2016 to 2017, with a religious facility without permission, and changed the form and quality of 30 square meters on the 12 square meters.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. To order an illegal act in an investigation report, business trip report, or development-restricted zone;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the entire certificate of registration and land register;

1. Article 32 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas subject to Restrictions on the Selection of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 32 and 12 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas subject to Restriction on the Selection of Punishments

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Considering the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act has not been restored to its original state, the fact that there was a record of punishment for the same kind of crime is disadvantageously taken into account, and considering the favorable circumstances in which the defendant recognized and reflected the crime.

In addition, various sentencing conditions, such as the nature of crimes, the scale of unauthorized use, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.