The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was known on April 1994 that the Defendant was paying a user fee after obtaining permission to occupy and use 302 square meters among the 379 square meters in Si-si, Si-si, the land located within the river area, and 169 square meters among the 1,200 square meters in the D bank 1,200 square meters, and that the land area actually occupied by the Defendant on December 2, 2004 is 345 square meters.

Therefore, while discussing the extension of permission to occupy and use Si-Gu and Si-Gu, the competent administrative agency, the Defendant requested the refund of user fees or the discharge of the above land several times for the portion exceeding 345 square meters paid up until that time. Since Si-Gu was waiting for resolution after the review, the Defendant did not take any measures thereafter, the Defendant did not obtain the extension of permission to occupy and use.

Therefore, the defendant's occupation and use of land within the river area of this case without obtaining permission is responsible for Si interest, and there was no possibility that the defendant will expect the lawful act.

2. The Defendant has the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court.

The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion under the title of “determination on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion” and rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.