All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation established for the purpose of production and sale of aggregate; Defendant A is the actual operator of the B Co., Ltd.; and a person seeking to extract aggregate shall obtain permission from the competent authority, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

A. From July 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013, Defendant A extracted aggregate of approximately KRW 169,29,291 cubic meters by using dredging lines, etc., without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, from the third Section located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, from July 1, 2012 (the market price of KRW 1,862,204,414).

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. extracted aggregate without obtaining permission from the competent authority in relation to the Defendant’s business at the above date and at the above place.

The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the witness F, G’s statements, and the witness H’s respective statements and records, which were the chief manager of dredging equipment of Defendant B Co., Ltd.; (b) after December 2, 2012, the Defendants’ performance of aggregate or sand sales, and most of them appears to have been sold, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the inspection alone cannot be deemed to have proved the facts charged that the Defendants extracted aggregate without permission from the competent authority during the period from May 30, 2013 to October 31 of the same year, 2013, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the facts charged that the Defendants extracted aggregate without permission from the competent authority were proven, while the prosecution against the violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act from July 1, 2012 to May 29, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case was completed; (c) however, the statute of limitations for prosecution was not imposed on the remainder of the facts charged.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The witness F and G of the lower court are the case at the investigative agency.