1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who had worked as a supervisor at the construction site supervision from August 25, 2017 to October 24 of the same year as well as from October 24 of the same year.

When any change is made to the matters subject to development activities, permission for change shall be obtained from the competent authorities.

Nevertheless, on December 2017, the Defendant did not obtain permission for the alteration of development activities from the competent administrative agency, when he/she was found to have exceeded the area equivalent to 14,515.78 square meters (2,589 square meters in size, 17,105.53 square meters in actual filled-up area), 9,127.02 square meters in size (2,60.8 square meters in size, actual cut-off area, 11,727.90 square meters in actual cut-off area) and did not obtain permission for the alteration of development activities from the competent administrative agency.

2. The Defendant Company B, as described in paragraph (1), did not obtain permission to change the development activities of the competent authority as described in paragraph (1) with respect to the Defendant’s work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and E;

1. An application for a permit for development activities, a written accusation, a business plan, a damage prevention plan, and a permit to modify development activities;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 140 subparagraph 1 of Article 140 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 56 (2) and Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Planning and Utilization of National Land Planning and Utilization B stock company: Articles 143, 140 subparagraph 1 of Article 140 and Article 56 (2) and (1) of the Act on the Planning and Utilization of National Land;

1. Defendant A: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: A extenuating circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: (a) excessive banking without obtaining permission to change development activities; and (b) circumstances that are favorable to the fact that the cut area of the ground has not been substantial: (c) the Defendants completed construction with permission to change development activities around November 2018; (d) Defendant A was the primary offender; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal record relationship