The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case that the court below found guilty and sentenced a fine of three million won to the defendant is as follows.

A person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the competent authority according to the classification of the types, areas, etc. of the mountainous district by determining the purpose thereof.

Around January 2015, the Defendant was performing construction with the approval of the implementation plan for the development project in Cheongju-si Complex B and C (hereinafter “instant land subject to the permission of reclamation”), and instead, did not obtain the permission of mountainous district conversion, the Defendant used D, a project developer, to convert mountainous district into mountainous district, by having D, a land developer, owned by the Defendant, such as E and EF (hereinafter “the instant adjacent land”), 1,677 square meters in height located in the instant land (hereinafter “the instant adjacent land”).

2. The Defendant’s assertion or appeal is not only in the trial process of the lower court, but also in the investigation process, consistently denied the facts charged in the instant case by consistently asserting that (the summary was that there was no instruction to fill the instant financial act to D) as follows.

In addition, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the same purport that there was an error of mistake in fact in the judgment of the lower court, which led to the same purport (the Defendant withdrawn the argument that “the grounds for unfair appeal for sentencing” from the second day of the trial of the lower court). The Defendant obtained approval from the competent administrative agency (the head of the Gun) of the implementation plan for the development project on the land where the development permission of the instant land was granted, and gave a contract to D, an engineering work operator, who is an engineering work operator, for the construction work on the land. However, this cannot be said as correct expression in the indictment.

In addition, it is true that part of earth and sand gathered from the cutting process of the land reclamation permission of this case is filled up on the adjoining land of this case while the above reclamation (civil engineering) construction has been completed.

In other words, the Defendant has earth and sand set up without permission among the facts charged in the instant case.