Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Land owners, etc. shall transfer the relevant land or goods to a project implementer by the commencement date of expropriation.

The Defendant, on February 27, 2013, when the Special Committee on the Expropriation of Land in Jeollabuk-do rendered a ruling on expropriation of the goods, such as the building located DD located in Kim Jong-si, the Defendant owned by the Defendant on April 22, 2013, but did not deliver or transfer the above buildings and other things to the Defendant Company by the date on which the commencement date of expropriation was decided on April 22, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against the defendant;

1. Copy of the written ruling;

1. A copy of the decision;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint and a complaint;

1. Article 97 Subparag. 4 of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects for Criminal Facts (Amended by Act No. 12972, Jan. 6, 2015)

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On February 27, 2013, the judgment on February 27, 2013, rendered by the former provincial land expropriation committee in relation to the application for adjudication against the Defendant and the defense counsel’s claim for adjudication against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “project implementer of the instant case”), was based on the previous ruling to transfer the goods, such as the building located in Kim Jeju-si D (hereinafter “the instant obstacles”) owned by the Defendant to another place, and notwithstanding the above ruling, the ownership of the instant obstacles was still owned by the Defendant.

Therefore, the operator of the instant project shall remove the land at his own expense pursuant to the proviso of Article 33(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant, who is the owner of the obstruction of this case, is not entitled to demand removal of the obstruction of this case and delivery of land, and the defendant is the owner of the obstruction of this case.