The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where a person with a container is installed by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it does not fall under a river area, and the defendant is the owner, and thus there is no need to obtain permission for occupation and use, and Article 4 (2) of the River Act, which provides that he cannot exercise his private right to the land constituting the river and other river facilities, is unconstitutional, and the provision of a container does not fall under the construction of a new structure,

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles also asserted the same purport as this part of the appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the item of "judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion". 2) According to Article 2 (1) and (2) of the River Act as to whether the land on which the defendant installed a container (hereinafter "the land in this case") falls under the river area, the river area and river facilities under the same Act include the river area designated as a national river or a local river, and the river area here includes the river area and river facilities. The river area is determined as the river area by the river management agency pursuant to Article 10 of the same Act. The records show that the head of the Daejeon Regional Construction and Management Office delegated by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as delegated by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (D) decided on December 31, 2009 that the land in this case included the river area in the river area of Gap which is a national river.

Therefore, the land of this case is not a river area.