The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts constituting a crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the part of the crime that “the Defendant installed (such as installation) a retaining wall with a height of 0.5 to 1.8 meters on the above site, and a retaining wall with a length of 49 meters” does not constitute an act that constitutes an element of a crime of violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged has erred by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged in the instant case, installed a retaining wall with a height of 0.5 to 1.8 meters, and a retaining wall with a length of 49 meters, without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Gun on April 2013, 201, and changed the form and quality of the land by filling up the height of 1.5 meters to 3 meters.

However, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s installation of a retaining wall as a means to fill up the retaining wall as an independent act, and therefore, it is deemed that the installation and banking of the front stone constituted a change in the form and quality of land as a single act.

Ultimately, the above alteration of the form and quality of land requires permission from the head of the competent Gun pursuant to Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Thus, the criminal facts of the judgment below that the defendant violated the National Land Planning and Utilization Act by changing the form and quality of the land in

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Although the defendant asserts that the part on the installation of a retaining wall before the retaining wall is a legal argument, the act of raising the retaining wall itself is erroneous and contradictory, and any criminal punishment is imposed prior to the instant case.