The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the purchaser of Gwangju City D and E (hereinafter “the instant land”), requested the embling of the instant land to N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”), which is the seller of Gwangju City, if it is possible to fill the instant land. However, even if the Defendant obtained a construction permit that re-consultations with the competent authority is necessary to fill the instant land more than 50cc on the instant land, the Defendant ordered the embling of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant embling work”) without obtaining any separate permission and conducted development activities accordingly, is N, and there is no room for the Defendant to be responsible for the instant embling work.

2. Determination

A. A person who intends to change the form and quality of the land in the summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall obtain permission from the competent authorities.

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant, without obtaining permission on around October 25, 2016, filled up approximately KRW 1.5 to 2m of soil on the site of 13,422m of land using an excavated machine in Gwangju-si D and E, a natural green area, and made changes in the form and quality of land.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

(c)

(1) In the relevant legal doctrine, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination should be made in the interest of the defendant even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.

Supreme Court Decision 201Do231 Decided June 28, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012) Examining the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.