The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was never involved in changing the form and quality of the instant land as a parking lot, and was unaware of whether the instant land is being used as a parking lot from the Gangnam-gu Office until a corrective order is issued.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the summary of the facts charged in this case, construction of a building and alteration of the purpose of use, installation of a structure, alteration of the form and quality of land, deforestation, partition of land, piling-up of goods, etc. cannot be performed within the development restriction zone, and the above act shall be subject to

Nevertheless, from November 2013 to May 2014, the Defendant changed the form and quality of land without obtaining permission from the competent authority by using 160 square meters of forest land in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, a development restriction zone, as a parking lot without permission from the competent authority.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case as evidence of the Defendant’s statement, land cadastre, land use planning confirmation, and photograph in the part of the lower court.

C. 1) The Defendant consistently stated that he was not involved in the use of the instant land from the investigative agency to the party trial, and that he was unaware of the fact that the instant land was being used as a parking lot before receiving a corrective order with the Gangnam-gu Office. (2) However, the above evidence cited by the lower court as evidence of guilt is merely merely that the instant land was used as a parking lot even though it falls under a development restriction zone, and the Defendant changed the form and quality of the instant land.

(1) The facts supporting the fact that he/she has participated therein shall be eligible to become such evidence.