The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures Concerning Designation and Management of Areas subject to Restrictions on Development due to Habitual Non-compliance of Corrective Order on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habitual offenders.

Meanwhile, on October 28, 2014, the lower court erred in deeming “pre-announcement of corrective measures and compulsory performance” to be a corrective order under Article 30(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Development-Restricted Areas, but it can be sufficiently recognized that habituality may be sufficiently recognized even after such error, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.