The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the ice sales business without obtaining permission from the head of a local government, and even though the public property is not for profit, the Defendant used the public property without obtaining permission from April 9, 2012 to September 20, 2012, by engaging in the business of selling ice 27 kilograms of ice 27 kilograms using the ice 27 kilograms of ice 27 kilograms using the E cargo freezing tower and FF cargo freezing vehicle without obtaining permission from the head of a local government.

2. Since the facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Articles 99 and 6(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, the offense is established if the parking lot of the D market used and used by the defendant constitutes “administrative property” under the same Act.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act, "public property" means any property under the subparagraphs of Article 4 (1), which belongs to a local government pursuant to a local government's burden, contribution acceptance, or pursuant to a statute, and Article 5 (1) of the Act shall classify public property into administrative property and general property.

Therefore, the administrative property should be owned by the local government as being included in the public property in any case.

However, according to the investigation report (examination as to whether the D market belongs to administrative property), the partial certificate of registration matters of the corporation, and the copy of the register of real estate register, the owner of the D market parking lot is "G Corporation". The above Corporation constitutes a local public corporation with independent corporate personality established pursuant to Article 21 of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products and Articles 50 and 51 of the Local Public Enterprises Act.

Therefore, the D market parking lot can not be considered as administrative property owned by local governments.

3. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.