The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of innocence against the Defendant on the following grounds.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to construct illegal buildings (Article 1 of the facts charged), the Defendant may recognize the fact that he installed containers of 4 square meters wide for storage, such as tools, etc., and constructed illegal buildings, in violation of the notification that the Defendant would put up containers of 18 square meters above 18 square meters on the ground of Seosung-si (hereinafter “instant land”) whose land category is Jeonsung-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) The prosecutor did not state the grounds for appeal on the part of the corrective order on the 64m2 in a steel pipe warehouse under paragraph (2) of the instant facts charged, and on the 4m2 in a container warehouse.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant part of the instant land was diverted to a parking lot on a regular basis without complying with a corrective order issued on February 2, 2017, to rectify a violation of the alteration of the form and quality, which is used as a parking lot by packaging a concrete package with a size of 160 square meters among the instant land.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake as to the facts as to Article 1 of the facts charged, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

① On March 7, 2016, the Defendant reported on the instant land to set up a temporary container building for the purpose of storing agricultural products at a warehouse (an investigation record between 82 and 86 pages) on the instant land, and received notification on March 15, 2016.

On August 2016, the Defendant constructed containers for the purpose of storing agricultural products (hereinafter referred to as “containers of this case”) with a size less than that of the original plan by reducing the size thereof due to insufficient funds for around 4, 2016.

The argument is asserted.

A person who constructed a building with a smaller area than reported by the defendant has violated the report.