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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the land and the building on the ground in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government within the district of the redevelopment and rearrangement project association for B.

The owners of land, persons concerned, and other persons who do not include landowners or persons concerned, but hold rights to the land to be expropriated or used or goods thereon shall deliver or transfer such land or goods to the project executor by no later than the commencement date of expropriation or use.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant received an amount equivalent to KRW 1 billion of compensation deposit from the above union on October 20, 2017, the Defendant did not deliver the said land and buildings to the above union as a project executor until October 20, 2017, which was the date of commencement of expropriation, even though it received an amount equivalent to KRW 1 billion of compensation deposit from the above union.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a petition for complaint, written ruling, and certificate for registration;

1. Article 95-2 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor and Article 95-2 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works Projects for the Preparation of Crimes and the Selection of Fines;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not violate the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), even if the Defendant did not transfer real estate, on the ground that the procedures for compensating for losses of the B Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “the instant association”) were not completed upon the Defendant’s filing of an objection against the ruling by the Local Land Expropriation Committee.

According to the provisions of Articles 40, 43, 45, and 88 of the Land Compensation Act, an objection was filed against the ruling of the Local Land Expropriation Committee as alleged by the defendant.

Even if the above ruling is not null and void, the validity of the ruling itself shall not be suspended.

On the other hand, this Court.