The judgment below

Of them, the part of the crime No. 1-B against Defendant A and the part against Defendant Company shall be reversed.

1. The court below found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged against the Defendants and sentenced Defendant A to four months of imprisonment with prison labor and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1-B of the judgment below, and sentenced Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) to a fine of KRW 20 million.

As to the judgment of the court below, the defendants appealed from the prosecutor on the grounds of the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing, but the judgment prior to the return was dismissed in entirety by the prosecutor and the defendants.

With respect to the judgment of the court of first instance before remanding, the defendants' appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant No. 1-B of the judgment of the court of first instance before remanding the part concerning the crime and the defendant company, and the part concerning the crime and the defendant company were reversed and remanded to this court. The remaining appeals by the defendant A were dismissed.

2) Since the part concerning the crime No. 1-A in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A was separated and finalized, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the crime and the part concerning the defendant company (hereinafter “the part concerning the judgment of this court”) of the judgment of the court below.

2. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Defendants (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles on the facts, Defendants (1) and (1) were issued a corrective order for restoration to Defendant A on August 12, 2016 with respect to the act of cutting down scrap metal with respect to Defendant A, and the Defendant did not give prior notification and opportunity to present opinions while taking the following administrative disposition: thus, Defendant A did not comply with the said corrective order under this procedure.

This does not constitute a violation of the Special Measures Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (hereinafter referred to as "Development Restriction Zones Act").

Despite that, the lower court, among the facts charged against the Defendants, restores the Defendants to their original state.