The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The land in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) is refluored in the state of transfer laid fume as follows, when misunderstanding facts, and does not constitute a change in the shape of the land or impairing the utility of the land.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

1) Since the former new shares are owned by the Korea Electric Power Corporation, not by the victim, it is irrelevant to whether the utility of the telegraph and the land is infringed.

2) Land that has been restored to its original state is adjacent to a road, and traffic of a vehicle does not relate to the infringement of the utility of land.

3) Since water naturally flows on the instant land before me is laid underground, water flow does not necessarily constitute an inevitable flow of water due to the same situation as that of the transfer after me fume fume fume.

4) Since the present state of fume fume is the same as the state of transfer laid fume, the ground of the instant land has been weakened by the Defendant’s act and the risk of collapse of the facility has increased.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstanding (which is alleged by the Defendant as a misunderstanding of facts) G and the instant land constitute development restriction zones, and the part where a fume is laid off pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) is subject to original restoration.

Since the defendant has discussed fume fume in accordance with the original restoration order (administrative order) of Gyeyang-gu Office, it is legitimate and therefore the illegality is excluded.

2) In addition, the Defendant decided to lay fume in accordance with an agreement with the victim, and removed fume, upon the victim’s request for restoration from the original state.

Since there was a debate about fume in the land of this case according to the victim's will, the defendant's act is excluded from illegality.

3) Nevertheless, this case.