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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who engages in construction business, etc. under C's trade name.

1. Any person who intends to divert a mountainous district in violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts shall obtain permission from the head of the relevant forest and the head of the relevant Si, etc. for such diversion

Nevertheless, on December 12, 2016, the Defendant changed the form and quality of the land by cutting off 15,513 square meters out of 15,513 square meters out of D and 3 lots outside the emulative city by using the elicator.

2. A person who intends to change the form or quality of land in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall obtain permission from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayors, or heads of Sis/Guns;

Nevertheless, the defendant changed the form and quality of the above Paragraph 1 by cutting the ground by using the digging hole with 15,513 square meters of 15,00 square meters of the emuli City D and 3 parcels outside the emuli City without obtaining permission from the emuli City.g.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation site, field photographs, current status map, and paper sponse map;

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 53 of the Management of the relevant Mountainous Districts Act and the main sentence of Article 14 (1) of the relevant Management of the Mountainous Districts Act (illegal mountainous districts) concerning criminal facts, and Articles 140 subparagraph 1 and 56 (1) 2 (illegal changes in the form and quality) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of punishment: Selection of a fine;

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

1. Taking into account the fact that the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order does not constitute a criminal offense identical to the accused, that leads to the instant crime at the end of solving civil petitions, and that the business is being carried out after obtaining lawful permission after the crime, etc.