The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Fact-finding 1) As to the alteration of form and quality of dry field farming company, the Defendant requested Da to fill up the land in order to set up dry field farming company, and the Defendant did not know that the form and quality of the land in this case was changed by raising at a height of at least 50 cm, which would be in violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones. However, the lower court found that the Defendant conspired with D to fill up the land in collusion with 1.3m high, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) As to the non-compliance with the corrective order in this case, the Defendant did not want to reclaim industrial wastes in this case from the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”) to restore the land to its original state without any damage recovery. Thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the corrective order in this part of the charges without any justifiable reason, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) As to obstruction of business, the Defendant merely tried to prevent the progress of construction, and cannot be deemed to interfere with the business of “competing” work because he did not cause sound or she did not interfere with the work of the article. However, the lower court’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Furthermore, even if it does not so, the lower court’s sentencing (a fine of four million won is too unreasonable) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts about change of form and quality of land, the court below and the trial court are legitimate.