The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the non-existence of the Defendant’s construction is installed within the excursion ship wharf for the growth of the water and the growth of the water. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has occupied and used the river separately. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated Article 33(1

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 33(1)2 of the River Act, a person who intends to occupy and use river facilities within a river area shall obtain permission from the river management agency. The permission shall also be obtained in cases where the important matters prescribed by Presidential Decree among the permitted matters are changed.

In addition, according to Article 34 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act, the modification of important matters requiring permission from a river management agency includes the modification of the purpose of occupation.

In this case, the defendant obtained permission to occupy and use a river for the purpose of the excursion ship wharf for the purpose of water high-speed, and thus, in order to establish the infertility, it is necessary to obtain permission from the river management agency again.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not obtain permission to change the purpose of occupation and use. Thus, the defendant's act violates Article 33 (1) of the River Act.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015