The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant paid the river usage fee or property tax on Gyeonggi-si C, D, and E (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and since D and E are owned by the Defendant, the Defendant’s act as stated in the facts charged in order to recover damage from flood damage on each land of this case does not constitute a crime of violating the River Act, etc. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A summary of the facts charged) Any person who intends to occupy and use a river shall obtain permission from the competent authority. Nevertheless, around July 2013, the Defendant occupied and used a river by constructing a building with a floor area of 105 square meters, which is 105 square meters in a river located in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, without permission to occupy and use a river. (ii) A person who intends to occupy and use a river with a total floor area of less than 200 square meters in a natural environment conservation area violating the Building Act, and a building with less than three floors

Nevertheless, around March 2013, the Defendant constructed a temporary house with a floor area of 20.34 square meters and a storage with a floor area of 54 square meters, which is a toilet or temporary building, with a floor area of 20.34 square meters and a floor area of 20.34 square meters, without reporting to the competent authority in the Gyeonggi-do House D, respectively.

3) Although a person who intends to divert farmland in violation of the Farmland Act obtains permission from the competent authority, the Defendant used farmland 2,298 square meters as a camping site, without obtaining permission from the competent authority on October 2012, the Defendant used farmland 2,298 square meters as a camping site. On March 2013, the Defendant used farmland 20.34 square meters in toilets, temporary housing 21 square meters in storage, and 54 square meters in storage, and diverted farmland. 4) Despite the fact that a person who intends to engage in development activities in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “the National Land Planning and Utilization Act”) obtained permission from the competent authority.