All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles; Defendant A, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, provided that each of the lands listed in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) is leased to B and constitutes a development restriction zone; and that Defendant A was allowed to do only an act that is possible in the development restriction zone.

Therefore, Defendant A is not liable for unauthorized extension, unauthorized alteration of form and quality, and unauthorized disposal of the article in each of the instant land by Defendant A.

Defendant A related to the criminal facts stated in Section 1-b (b) of the judgment of the court below, hearing the statement that Defendant A would use a container stuff and warehouse without permission from a public official in charge of the control over the last 30 years, and continued to use it. Therefore, Defendant A’s legal error has justifiable grounds.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on the charge-related criminal facts as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 1-1 of the lower judgment’s judgment regarding Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, namely, B used the gravel in each of the instant land in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court for cement packing, and used it as a parking lot after using it as a parking lot after using it as a cement packing in the front of the warehouse; and Defendant A, the former owner of the construction, directly searched Defendant A, who was the owner of the construction, was notified of the fact, and approved the construction.

In light of the fact that the above construction work without the landowner’s consent seems to be an exceptional in light of social norms, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of the crime stated in paragraph 1-A, is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of fact.

Ultimately, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

Defendant A related to the facts constituting the crime stated in Section 1-b of the judgment below is also the same as the above facts constituting the crime in the court below.