The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 32 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (hereinafter “Act”) provides that a person who fails to obtain permission pursuant to the proviso to Article 12(1) or Article 13 of the Act shall be punished only where a person changes the form and quality of land, etc. or violates the main sentence of Article 12(1) of the Act. Thus, the Defendant’s act of installing a concrete as an access road to the land of this case does not constitute an act prescribed in the proviso to Article 12(1) of the Act, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, on the ground that it did not constitute a crime.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the land in this case is designated as a development-restricted zone; the defendant, without permission from the competent authority, established concrete on the land in this case and changed the form and quality of the land; the defendant cannot change the form and quality of the land in a development-restricted zone pursuant to the main sentence of Article 12 (1) of the Act; and the change of the form and quality of the land can only be done with permission only in certain cases as provided by the proviso of Article 12 (1) of the Act; and Article 32 subparagraph 1 of the Act provides that the act of changing the form and quality of the land shall be punished even if permission is not exceptionally possible with permission pursuant to the proviso of Article 12 (1) of the Act, and there is no penal provision for acts other than acts falling under the proviso of Article 12 (1) of the Act. The defendant's above argument that there is no punishment provision for changing the form and quality of the land. In this regard, it is just and acceptable that the court below found guilty of the facts charged.

3. Conclusion.