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

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

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to install a structure in a river area shall obtain permission from the river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, on September 2014, the Defendant occupied and used a river by installing a floating bridge (breadth of 1m, 10m in length) and abridge (area of 7.5m in size) in the Dopo-gu, the area of a national river located in Mayang-si, Manyang-si, the Defendant, without permission from a river management agency.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Accusation against the violator of a national river;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on reports on business trips;

1. Article 95 Subparag. 5 and Article 33(1) of the former River Act (amended by Act No. 1295, Jan. 6, 2015); the selection of fines for criminal facts; the choice of fines

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: (a) the removal of the main sentence and the main sentence; (b) the absence of a previous conviction; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment.

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. The Defendant asserts that “The Defendant: (a) installed a floating bridge and abson in the Dapo-gu, 2014, which had not been in uniformed, ordered the Defendant to remove the floating bridge and abson; (b) collected evidence as to whether the Defendant violated the River Act, such as filing a criminal charge on the ground that the police assigned with no uniform was not in compliance with the order; and (c) collected in accordance with the unlawful procedure; and (d) the police assigned with special guard did not have the authority to investigate the violation of

2. It cannot be deemed that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor solely on the grounds that the defendant alleged to have been collected in accordance with the illegal procedure to the extent that the admissibility of evidence is rejected.

In addition, the existence of the police assigned for special guard's investigation authority does not depend on the establishment of crimes.

Therefore, it is true.