Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who cultivates crops on public waters as a person who has no fixed occupation.

A person who intends to occupy or use public waters shall obtain permission to occupy or use public waters from the management agency of public waters.

Nevertheless, from March 2012 to November 19, 2017, the Defendant cultivated crops, such as math, etc., 70 mar, planted total of 70 mar trees, etc., and raised 9 mars and 1 mars, and occupied and used public waters without permission by installing a vinyl house and a mar-shaped wooden structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a written accusation against a violator of the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Public Waters, a permit for occupation and use without permission, a location map, and a photograph and a statement of business trip to the scene;

1. Article 62 of the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Waters for Criminal Facts and Articles 62 subparagraph 2 and 8 (1) of the Act on the Management of Waters for which Punishment is electively Shared, and Selection of a fine;

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is an act that makes it difficult to preserve and manage public waters by the defendant's private use of public waters for public interest.

The sentence like the order is imposed by considering the fact that the defendant is old and has no record of criminal punishment for the last 30 years, as a factor for sentencing that is disadvantageous to the defendant, although the defendant was notified of the restoration of the original state to the defendant several times at the competent administrative office, the defendant's failure to implement the administrative vicarious execution has led to restoration to the original state.