A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to engage in development activities, such as construction of buildings and change of land form and quality, shall obtain permission from the competent authority, and where he/she intends to change any matters he/she has obtained permission for development activities, he/she

The Defendant did not obtain permission to change from the competent authority, from February 2016 to August 2016, and obtained permission to cut the ground of 10.3 meters in height and 15,140.2 meters in height and 2,928 cubic meters in height from the relevant authorities, but performed development activities without obtaining permission to change, unlike the previous permission, by creating factory access and factory site by cutting the ground of 39,922 cubic meters in height and 21 meters in height, unlike the previous permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. E statements;

1. Survey maps, on-site photographs, land utilization plans, records of violations, and survey maps of the current status;

1. A written accusation;

1. Each investigation report (the defendant and the defense counsel of the defendant and the defendant) asserts that the part of the cut portion due to the cutting of 4.5 meters in the height of cutting 1, 2, and 5 in the attached list of crimes and the cut portion due to the cutting of cutting was additionally cut by the F, etc. who acquired the land from the defendant at their own needs, and that the facts charged cannot be acknowledged as to that part.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, at the time of the Defendant’s denial of additional cutting part, the registration of ownership transfer of C and G land in Nam-si was still made in the name of the Defendant. Although the construction cost for the said part was borne by F et al., it appears that the Defendant was not able to perform additional cutting construction without the Defendant’s consent, since it was before receiving the remainder of each land.