The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was aware of the public official in charge of the installation of an excellent route to obtain approval for the use of a building newly constructed on neighboring land, and the public official in charge at the time did not inform the Defendant that he/she should report the temporary use of the mountainous district. The Defendant’s mistake in law does not constitute a crime on justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are as follows: ① the Defendant newly constructed a building on the land located near the instant mountainous district on July 2014, after obtaining a building permit from Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun and applied for the approval of use on August 24, 2016, but did not obtain the approval of use due to the problem of connection with the final drainage until the final drainage point; ② the Defendant, as a matter of the problem, has come to two times at two parallels, and filed a civil petition with the administrative autonomous department; ③ on-site investigation on December 12, 2016, by the executive autonomous assistant inspector B and the Defendant, and the public official in charge at the time when G went to the site with the Defendant, who is a public official in charge of the instant mountainous district, to the effect that, upon obtaining the approval of the owner of the instant mountainous district, the Defendant should be held liable for an unfair on-site investigation after obtaining the approval of the owner of the instant land, and the Defendant should be recognized to the effect that the Defendant would be responsible for new use.