The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Facts charged;

1. Around September 2017, the Defendant did not comply with an order to remove 2 Dong-dong (15 square meters, 92.7 square meters) of an unlawful building without permission until September 30, 2017, which was issued a notice of “order to correct an illegal act within a development-restricted zone” under the name of the head of Eunpyeong-gu Office in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul and C, which was designated as a development-restricted zone on September 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with the corrective order of the competent authority.

2. Around April 2019, the Defendant did not comply with an order to remove two Dongs of an illegal building (15 square meters, 92.7 square meters) without permission until May 30, 2019, within a given period, even though he/she received notification of the “order to Correct an illegal act in a development restriction zone” under the name of the head of Eunpyeong-gu Office in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and C, which was designated as a development restriction zone on April 2019.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with the corrective order of the competent authority.

2. Each of the instant corrective orders written in the facts charged, which is characterized as a disposition imposing duties on the party to the judgment or restricting rights and interests, are deemed to have been issued without a legitimate notice of disposition in accordance with Articles 21(1) and (4), 22, and 14(1) and (4) of the Administrative Procedures Act. In light of the nature of each of the instant corrective orders, it is difficult to find materials to deem that there are grounds provided in each of the subparagraphs of Article 21(4) of the Administrative Procedures Act, such as cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the hearing of opinions on the accused is considerably difficult or clearly unnecessary.

However, even if each of the above corrective orders is not null and void as a matter of course, the defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development unless the above corrective order is deemed illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7321, Sept. 21, 2017).

3. Sentence of not guilty: there is no proof of crime.