The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. The Defendant’s act of raising the ground for appeal does not require permission for development activities under the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”) due to the change in the form and quality for cultivation, and thus, the Defendant does not have a duty to comply with an administrative agency’s order to restore the land to its original state.

(In fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles). 2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. A summary of the facts charged 1) A person who intends to change the form and quality of land on the filled-up part without obtaining permission for change of development activities shall obtain permission from the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Special Self-Governing City Mayor, a Special Self-Governing Province Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun, and also obtain permission for change of development activities. Nevertheless, on March 29, 2010, the Defendant is deemed to have obtained permission for change of the form and quality of land.

(2) Around October 2011, when a person was engaged in construction works with permission for development activities for the purpose of improving farmland with respect to land of 6,114 square meters in total, he/she performed development activities. Around October 201, even if he/she obtained permission for a planned plan of 754 square meters in the C rice field with approximately 28.8 meters, he/she set the maximum height of about 31 meters without obtaining permission for alteration of development activities. Although he/she obtained permission for a planned plan of 371 square meters in height and about 29.7 meters, he/she did not obtain permission for alteration of development activities, and performed development activities without obtaining permission for alteration of development activities, thereby affecting the drainage of neighboring land. Accordingly, the Defendant performed development activities without obtaining permission for alteration of development activities, the Defendant was subject to an order for restoration from February 28, 2013 to March 19, 2013.