The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the location where the Defendant occupied is deemed a river area is sufficient.

2. Determination

A. We examine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts. The court below found the prosecutor not guilty of the facts in the case of this case on the ground that according to the result of the inquiry into the fact-finding conducted by the court of the original instance, it is clear that the land in this case is located outside the river area and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the land in this case falls under the river area as prescribed by the River Act. In addition, a thorough examination of the reasoning of innocence in light of the records in this case, Article 33 (1) of the River Act provides that "a person who intends to perform any of the following acts within a river area shall obtain permission from the river management agency as prescribed by Presidential Decree", Article 2 subparagraph 2 of Article 2 provides that "the term "river area" means the area of land determined pursuant to Article 10 (1)" and Article 10 (1) provides that "a river management agency shall determine or change any area falling under any of the following subparagraphs as a river area or revoke the designation or change of the designation pursuant to Article 7 (6)."

In addition, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case falls under the river area under the River Act even if it is based on all the proof by the prosecutor, including the court below, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. ex officio determination of authority, the Prosecutor maintained the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged, while applying the applicable provisions in preliminary cases.