Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Any person who intends to perform an act falling under new construction, etc. of buildings or other structures in a water-source protection zone shall obtain permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, on January 2 through 2, 2015, the Defendant, without the above permission, built a retaining wall (the so-called so-called in-house retaining wall) with a length of about 60 meters and about 2.8 meters high on the Gyeonggi-si and D land, which is a water source protection zone, and constructed a new structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Each police statement made to E and F;

1. A written accusation;

1. An investigation report (Submission report of data by the two-dimensional Military Offices);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to certified copies, ledgers, certificate of land use plan, performance map on the part of illegal land, official text for restoration from the original state, and photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 83 subparagraph 1 and 7 (4) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

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 of the Provisional Payment Order / [The defendant is a special law under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zones”), and thus, the law of Development Restriction Zones should be applied in this case. However, the Water Services Act and the Act of Development Restriction Zones cannot be deemed as a special law under the Act where the law of Development Restriction Zones is applicable only on the grounds that the legislative purpose is different from that of the defendant's assertion that the legislative purpose of the Act is different. Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit]