All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant did not comply with the order to reinstate the Kimpo market without obtaining permission to change the land of this case as stated in the facts charged, but the Defendant may be deemed to have completed the inspection of completion under Articles 62 and 56(1)1 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act with respect to the building constructed on the land of this case after the restoration to its original state after obtaining approval for use under Article 22 of the Building Act. As such, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant is not guilty in accordance with the “Article 18 of the Building Act and Article 56(1)1 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act” in the statement of grounds for appeal. However, since Article 18 of the Building Act was changed to Article 22 of the Building Act due to the amendment on February 29, 2008, this act was deemed to be an obvious clerical error. The Defendant’s above act is not a crime. It is unfair that the Defendant’s fine (70 million won) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. According to the defendant's statement and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant committed a violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act by failing to comply with an order to reinstate the Kimpo market without obtaining permission to change the land of this case as stated in the facts charged. The defendant's assertion that the circumstance that the defendant restored the land of this case to its original state is not verified, and even if so, it does not affect the already established crime, and it does not constitute a crime because the defendant has undergone a completion inspection on the building constructed on the land of this case after the crime was committed."