The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) a person who intends to display or install an advertisement, etc. in a natural park under the Natural Parks Act shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu. However, on May 20, 2017, a person who intends to display or install the advertisement, etc. to a natural park under the Natural Parks Act shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Metropolitan City Special Self-Governing Province Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Self-Governing Province Special Metropolitan City Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “the instant site”) the title “C (D) Non-Party Specialing Province Specializing in the back of the Non-Party B forest which is a natural park,” stating that he/she “I have contributed to his/her independent movement.”

2. The instant facts charged were modified by the instant court’s permission of the prosecutor’s application for changes in indictment on May 1, 2018. As such, the argument premised on the previous facts charged cannot be determined separately in addition to the assertion as to the abuse of public prosecution rights, which is determined under the following:

The defendant and his defense counsel set up the advertisement of this case is to find out the installation of a defaulted tower of C, which is pro-Japanese on the site of this case. If the advertisement of this case conflicts with the Outdoor Advertisement Act, the defaulted tower of C, which is set up prior thereto, shall also be deemed as the advertisement of violation of the same Act. However, the prosecutor rejected the defendant's complaint regarding the establishment of the defaulted tower of this case only for the defendant, which pointed out it. Thus, the prosecution of this case violates the procedure prescribed by the law, and the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.