Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall use or take profits from State property without following the procedures and methods prescribed by Acts.

Nevertheless, around August 2017, the Defendant cut and filled up 430 square meters among 1,409 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Cheongju, which is a state-owned property, and used it without permission to enter the C factory.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Protocol of examination of the witness witness D;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Inquiries and replies to inquiries to the head of the E-General in blueju;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Determination of the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion following a request for investigation cooperation

1. The main point of the assertion is that the land category B B 1,409 square meters is not only the original road but also the former road, which was used as the opening of the high-speed rail. Since then, it is not cut or filled up for the purpose of possession by the rier Defendant, who flows into the slope from the slope to the original earth.

Therefore, since the defendant did not use the state property without permission, the crime of violation of the State Property Act is not established.

2. According to the evidence in the judgment, the part cut and filled out by the Defendant is not “72m2m2 out of B 1,409m2,” but “430m2 out of B 1,409m2” (hereinafter “instant State property”) with the permission of use. The Defendant appears to have cut and filled the instant State property and used it as the access to the C factory.

Furthermore, even if the land category of the State-owned property of this case is “road” and was used for the past, it constitutes a violation of the State Property Act if the Defendant cuts and embling the State-owned property of this case without obtaining permission for use, etc. in the status of covering the soil from before around 2005 and performing its function as a road any longer.