The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was no intention to occupy the instant river site, which is a State property, due to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of violating the State Property Act, and as well, the use of the instant river site is erroneous as being permitted by statutes, and there is a justifiable ground therefor, the Defendant cannot be punished pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

However, the court below's conviction is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor maintained the criminal facts and applicable provisions of law as they are, and applied for changes to the contents of the facts charged “as of June 13, 1983,” which read “as of February 1, 2018,” which read “as of February 1, 2018,” the court below was unable to maintain as they were, since the subject of the judgment was changed by permitting it.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

B. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) A person who intends to use the summary of the facts charged shall obtain permission from the competent authority in accordance with relevant statutes, and no person shall use or benefit from State property (including administrative property) unless he/she complies with the procedures and methods prescribed in relevant statutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from February 1, 2018 to July 19, 2018, used soil brick buildings constructed on the ground B, which is administrative property, as a warehouse and health source building.

In this respect, the defendant does not follow the procedures and methods prescribed by relevant statutes.