The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

From December 18, 2012, the Defendant constructed an urban rental house called "E" from the first group of individuals in force (state) in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and one parcel.

A person who constructs housing and a project operator shall construct housing in compliance with design books.

However, while constructing rental houses, the Defendant constructed a house different from the design drawings by putting about 16 square meters away from the neighboring river boundary (16 square meters).

Accordingly, the defendant constructed a house different from the design drawing so that many unspecified people who will move into the house can not move into the house normally.

2. Determination

A. The main design of the defendant and his defense counsel also has been designed to violate the river improvement zone from the beginning to construct the retaining wall, and accordingly, the defendant constructed the retaining wall along with his design. Thus, there was no construction differently from the design drawing.

B. As stated in the facts charged in concrete determination, we examine whether the Defendant constructed a river improvement zone in accordance with the design drawing (i.e., whether a retaining wall violated a river improvement zone by constructing a different construction, although the Defendant was designed not to violate a river improvement zone in accordance with the design drawing).

A direct evidence that conforms to the above facts charged is the testimony (i.e., the original design drawing was designed not to violate the river improvement zone in the original design drawing. However, even though the construction project is to re-influence a site boundary survey before the commencement of the construction project so that the river improvement zone does not violate the river improvement zone, the retaining wall is immediately being constructed without the boundary survey at the time, so it seems that the river improvement zone was invaded by the river improvement zone, and there is any error in the witness who did not properly supervise in the process).

However, the above testimony is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.