The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

1) The former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same applies)

The main text of Article 94 provides, “A person who occupies and uses a road without obtaining permission for occupation and use of the road may collect an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the occupation and use fees for the occupation and use period as a compensation.” The proviso of Article 94 provides, “However, a person who occupies and uses the road exceeding the permitted area without collecting a compensation if the occupation and use of the road has no intention or negligence of the person who occupies and uses the road due to an error by a survey agency, etc.” (hereinafter “person who occupies and uses the road beyond the permitted area”) without any intention or negligence.”

(2) Article 72(1) of the Road Act, which was wholly amended by Act No. 1248, Jan. 14, 2014, effective July 15, 2014 (hereinafter “Revised Road Act”), provides that “A road management agency may collect an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the occupancy charges for the period of excess occupancy, etc. (hereinafter “excess occupancy, etc.”) from a person who occupies and uses a road without obtaining permission to occupy and use the road or beyond the scope of the permission to occupy and use the road (hereinafter “excess occupancy, etc.”) as indemnification.” Article 72(2) provides that “Where excess occupancy, etc. is caused by an error of a survey institution, etc. or other intentional negligence of a person occupying and using the road, etc., notwithstanding paragraph (1), the road management agency shall notify the person occupying and using the road of the excess occupancy, etc., and collect an amount equivalent to one month after such notification, as well as the person who occupies and uses the road without any intention or negligence.”