The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the competent administrative office from July 2004 to April 23, 2012, upon receiving an order to restore from the head of the competent administrative office, the Defendant violated the order to restore the said land to its original state by using it as a parking lot site, etc., even if he/she continued to use the said order, even though he/she received an order to restore the said land from the said land to its original state to its original state on April 23, 2012, to the effect that “the said act is to be restored to its original state from May 15, 2012.”

2. In a case where a person subject to a disposition or an order to take measures as prescribed by Article 133(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “the Act”) violates it, such disposition or order to take measures shall be lawful in order to punish the person as prescribed by Article 142 of the Act. The disposition or order to take measures shall not be deemed unlawful inasmuch as it is recognized as an unlawful disposition, even if such disposition or order is not null and void.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, a person who engages in development activities without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency, or who engages in development activities differently from the details of permission, may be ordered to restore the relevant land to its original state. In full view of the provisions of Articles 133(1)5 and 56(1) of the Act, a person who engages in development activities without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used farmland 1,255 square meters in Hysung as stated in the facts charged without permission of the competent authority for development activities, such as farmland 1,255 square meters as stated in the facts charged. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the records of this case, it appears that the act of installing the above industrial company work facilities on the land in e.g., the land as stated in the facts charged of this case is F, which leased the land from the defendant in e.g., e., the F., the defendant.