The defendant is innocent. The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.

1. A person prosecuted who intends to change the form and quality of land shall obtain permission from the competent authorities;

Nevertheless, on April 2018, the Defendant changed the form and quality of the land (hereinafter referred to as “instant change in the form and quality”) by raising a total of 7,005.6 square meters at a height of 1.8 meters from the area 3,892 square meters in the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as specified;

3. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the change of the form and quality of the instant case is for cultivation without permission from the competent authorities pursuant to Article 56(1)2 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 15727, Aug. 14, 2018; hereinafter “Act”).

B. On this issue, the prosecutor requires the permission of the competent authority since the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land was made for the purpose of construction (Ⅰ), and ② even if not, it does not fall under Article 56(1)2 of the Act, the alteration of the form and quality of land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree is a change in the form and quality of land for the purpose of cultivating crops, cultivating farmland, promoting the soil power and improving productivity, and installing the acquisition and drainage facilities (see Article 51(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act). Since the creation of the instant land subject to the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land is not completed, it does not fall under Article 56(1)2 of the Act.

(Chapter II) 4. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, even if all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (in particular, the statement, etc. by the public official in charge of the Jinhae Office), it cannot be concluded that the Defendant changed the form and quality of the building for the purpose of construction at the time of changing the form and quality of the instant case.