The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part that the Defendant changed the form and quality of the land by packaging the access road to the land located in Gwangju Mine-gu C and D (hereinafter “instant land”) on the surface of 243 square meters of the access road of 1,969 square meters of land located in Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant land”). The above access road shall be deemed to be “public service” under joint use by the village, and the above act by the Defendant constitutes a minor act without the permission under Article 12(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Measures for the Establishment and Management of Development Restriction Areas (attached Table 4] 3(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Measures for the Establishment and Management of Development Restriction Areas.

2) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part that the Defendant: (a) laid a brick on the instant land in a square spot; (b) laid a steel pipe; and (c) laid a roof using vinyl, etc. as a drying site; and (d) the Defendant’s act constitutes a minor act that does not require permission under Article 12(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Act, such as “construction of a eromatic drying machine or a flag facility with a size not exceeding 50 square meters from the place of production” under Article 12 Subparag. 1 (t) of the said Enforcement Rule. 1 of the said Act.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges charged as guilty, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by providing a detailed statement of the “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment.

In full view of the circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is the same.