The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is the representative director of the instant charges, and the said company is a corporation established for the purpose of developing a water solar power plant.

A person obtained permission to develop a water-powered solar power plant, and obtains permission to change if the project is being implemented, and if the project is not completed within the permitted period and is notified by the related agency of measures such as reinstatement, he/she shall comply with such instructions. However, the Defendant was engaged in development activities upon obtaining permission to install a water-powered solar power plant from the number of Yyeong-gun and 3 lots (area 11,165 square meters) in the south-gun and the south-gun (area 11,165 square meters) in the area from September 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

However, even if F water was delivered twice through the delivery of notice of measures, such as restitution, to the original state (hereinafter “instant order for restitution”) by the relevant agency by carrying out construction work in an area exceeding 40 to 50 meters from the development area where F water was discarded at the end of the horse, it was not implemented.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is acknowledged that the Defendant did not comply with the order to reinstate the instant case. However, in order to find the Defendant guilty of the charges of the instant case, the aforementioned order to reinstate is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6845, Feb. 23, 2007). According to the above evidence, the Defendant had already been duly authorized to change electric power generation business pursuant to the Electric Utility Business Act from the competent authority on April 20, 2016, and was waiting for the result of an application for permission to change development acts pursuant to the National Land Planning and Utilization Act to the competent authority on May 17, 2016 (the competent authority issued the permission to change development acts on September 7, 2016), while the competent authority issued the order to reinstate the instant case, which is an erosion of administrative disposition, but also sought prior notice or opinion as prescribed in the Administrative Procedure Act.