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

The Defendant, the president of C, who is an incorporated association, could not use or benefit from state property without following the procedures and methods prescribed by relevant Acts, such as the State Property Act. However, from February 28, 2012 to September 6, 2013, the Defendant occupied and used State property without permission by installing and operating 13 buildings in total by installing and operating 13 or more buildings on the railroad site located at the high-priced lower-rise of the E-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, which is a state property managed by the Korea Rail Network Authority from around February 28, 2012 to September 6, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A certified copy of the register-land, certificate (written removal and performance of suspect preparation), on-site photographs of administrative vicarious execution;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Relevant Articles 82 and 7 (1) of the State Property Act and the choice of punishment concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. The defendant alleged that the railroad site in this case does not constitute State property because it is not owned by the State. However, under Article 20 of the Framework Act on Railroad Industry Development, the railroad facility belongs to the State (the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may have the Korea Rail Network Authority perform its duties on his/her behalf pursuant to Article 19 of the same Act). The railroad site in this case is owned by the Korea Rail Network Authority, and the railroad site in this case is owned by the Korea Rail Network Authority, and it constitutes State property. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the defendant's existing buildings are five buildings, eight buildings have already been removed from around 2011, and two restaurants are not installed by the defendant.

However, there is no evidence to view that the building was removed at the time of the defendant's assertion.