Defendant

Republic of Korea

Attorney Lee Won-soo et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The 16-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

When the defendant intends to occupy and use public waters, he shall obtain permission from the competent authorities, but without obtaining permission from the competent authorities;

1. The reclamation of public waters, the area of which is the seashores on the part of the daily members of the branch line of Pyeongtaek-si in order to manage the area of Pyeongtaek-si in order to use them as a warehouse from November 10, 2006 by installing four containers on that part of the public waters; and

2. On February 2, 2006, after additional reclamation of public waters, which are seasides on the area and non-area of a branch line, on the ground of a branch line.

1. Each statement by the witness in this Court from Non-Indicted 2 and 1

1. The statement that, among the suspect examination protocol of the defendant against the defendant by the prosecution on around 1990, the land adjacent to Pyeongtaek-si area management (hereinafter 1 omitted) was covered by soil and the ground was enhanced by covering the surrounding land with the soil on February 2, 2006, and buried nearby land on February 25, 2006, and that four containers are installed on the container and used as a warehouse;

1. Statement of the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 2 (including attached survey drawings and photographs)

1. 1) The photographic images of a petition of appeal and each page attached thereto;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 21 subparag. 1 of the Public Waters Management Act (Preparation of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments of Article 1 of the Criminal Act with No. 1 of the Judgment with No. 1st Crimes)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the land that the defendant occupied and used by reclaiming as above is the original forest, and that the register and the forest register were not restored after the lack of the land register at the time of the Korean War, and that the land still is not the public waters under the Public Waters Management

The public waters under the Public Waters Management Act include “seashores” and this refers to the space from the high-water line to the area registered in the cadastral record. However, according to the evidence above, the area of this case is located outside the area registered in the cadastral record, and there is no data to regard it as forest, as alleged by the Defendant.

Furthermore, the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the above area is a river. However, although the land site of the same Ri (hereinafter omitted) and the forest land of the same Ri (hereinafter omitted) are indicated next to the original land register (hereinafter omitted), such facts alone cannot be viewed as a river that is not a beach but a river of the instant area. Rather, even if comprehensively considering the maps submitted by the defendant and aerial photography, it is obvious that the area of the instant area is facing the sea where there is a considerable gap from the scarcity of the inner river.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel.

In this case, the statutory penalty is one year or less, or a fine not exceeding ten million won, and the statutory penalty alone cannot be deemed as a more serious crime compared to other crimes. However, the area of this case is designated as a port area in urban planning and currently being a public project, such as a reclamation project for harbor facilities, etc. The Defendant is merely a punishment for private occupation by asserting that it cannot be subject to private ownership due to the cryptization, and furthermore, the Defendant is serving as a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership by asserting the acquisition by prescription against the State (after the pleadings of this case were concluded, the Defendant withdrawn the above civil lawsuit), and submitted a survey and appraisal in the civil procedure, and submitted the decision to designate the date and received the decision later, and continues the litigation of this case by delaying the civil procedure. Moreover, the Defendant’s series of acts such as delay in the litigation of this case continued development activities by using equipment during the process of the lawsuit of this case. It does not appear to have been seen as compensation for damages related to the current harbor construction project or the recognition of ownership.

In light of all these points, it is deemed inappropriate to select a fine or suspend the execution of a sentence against the accused. Accordingly, the sentence shall be determined and sentenced as ordered in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the proceedings of the pleading in this case.

Judges Choi Han-han

Note 1) A written accusation was adopted as evidence on the fourth trial day prior to the renewal of pleadings, and all evidence were examined. However, even if the opinions on evidence were not written on the defendant's protocol, its meaning is unclear, and its overall purport is unclear, but its overall purport seems to have been rejected as evidence. Moreover, there is no statement that the prepareer accepts the authenticity. Accordingly, this written accusation was not used as evidence of guilt against the defendant.