1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won;

2. Where the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. A person who intends to build a retaining wall or wall, the height of which exceeds 2 meters, without reporting to the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, but without reporting to the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, the Defendant constructed a stone embankment (the height of 2.1m to 4.3m, the length of 40m) at Pocheon-si B in early 2014.

2. A person who intends to construct a building with a total floor area of less than 200 square meters and less than three floors in a controlled area, agricultural and forest area, or natural environment conservation area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu,

Nevertheless, on August 2014, the Defendant constructed one building of a wooden structure equivalent to 19 square meters in Macheon-si, an agricultural and forest area, which is an agricultural and forest area.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Confirmation of land use plan;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on current status of illegal buildings;

1. Article 110 subparagraph 3 of the Building Act and Article 83 (1) of the same Act on criminal facts (the construction of structures not reported and the selection of fines) and Articles 111 subparagraph 1 and 14 (1) of the Building Act (the fact that a building report is not filed);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion, etc. under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the Defendant had already been punished for the same case, punishment for the instant case is double punishment.

In this case, both the facts constituting a crime (2015 high-class 2675 violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, etc.) and the facts charged in this case are related to the Defendant’s farm members, but the basic facts cannot be deemed to be identical separately from the date, time, place, and contents of the facts constituting the crime. Thus, it cannot be deemed double punishment.

2. The instant sperm asserted the facts charged to the effect that it is not a building subject to reporting under the Building Act.