Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a mutual general restaurant with the name of “C” in Sacheon-si B.

Any person who intends to occupy and use land in a river area shall obtain permission from the river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the river management agency from July 201 to July 18, 2019, installed 5 mix facilities with a total size of 279m2 in the river area of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si (local rivers) and three mar facilities with a river size of 279m2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written confirmation of violation;

1. On-site detection photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the attachment and analysis of investigation data, the current status of Pyeongtaekcheon, and the extraction of surveying services on the river maintenance line), the records of river maintenance plan, and the records of building status;

1. Article 95 of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts, subparagraph 5 of Article 95 of the River Act that selects punishment, and Article 33 (1) 1 of the same Act and the selection of fines;

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

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing order under Article 334(1) are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the facts charged in the instant case and against his wrongness, and that the Defendant appears to remove the instant facilities

However, in light of the unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant occupied and used a river by installing a stone facility of a size of 279 square meters in a river area for about eight years and the period of crime is a long-term and occupied river area is a considerable amount of the river area, and that the Defendant has a history of criminal punishment twice the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor, it is deemed that the punishment of a summary order against the Defendant is not excessive.

In addition, all kinds of sentencing shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, balance with the general sentencing in the same or similar cases.