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

No one shall occupy or use agricultural production infrastructure without permission or use it without any justifiable ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as cases where an emergency measure is required to prevent damage caused by a natural disaster and to save lives, etc.

Nevertheless, from March 2013 to September 12, 2017, the Defendant occupied and used the said agricultural production infrastructure without permission by installing a dog in a steel structure with approximately 40 square meters on the roads B and C, which are agricultural production infrastructure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Accusation against violations of the law of rural communities, accusation, location map and photograph of the current state, demands for removal of each illegal facility, requests for restoration of each illegal facility to its original state, current state photographs, cadastral map, aerial photography, and each investigation report (verification of the land category of the place in this case, hearing statements by reference E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant Article 130 (3) and Article 18 (3) 3 of the Non-Performing Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination on the main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the issue of litigation costs

1. Since the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion by defense counsel acquired G land in around the Namyang-si in around 1964, the Defendant occupied the part of the instant H road and C ditch adjacent to the said G land. The Defendant’s punishment F acquired the instant H road and C ditch by prescription.

As such, H roads and ditches of this case do not constitute agricultural production infrastructure, but did not acquire the prescription period for household affairs.

Even if there was no intention to occupy and use agricultural production infrastructure without permission for the defendant who believed to be owned by the above F, and has been harmful to this point.

2. We examine the judgment, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.