A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 26, 2012, Kimpo-si B (hereinafter “instant charging site”) is a place designated as a development restriction zone pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, and on January 26, 2012, the Kimpo-si market “public announcement of plans for installing charging stations and standards for permitting alteration of the permission (hereinafter “public announcement”) for motor vehicle liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) within a development restriction zone,” and the criteria for permission was limited to “a person who resides in the relevant development restriction zone from the time of designation of the development restriction zone ( August 25, 1972)” and the Defendant planned to apply for permission for the LPG charging station in the name of the original resident after the original resident excluded from the above criteria for permission and borrowed the name from the original resident.

In around the end of 2013, the Defendant, as an original resident of the above C, was engaged in the vicarious driving business, proposed that “In order to file an application for a charging station license in the Gimpo-gu Green belt, only the person who has resided in the Gimpo-gu Green belt shall be eligible. Upon filing an application for a charging station license in the name of the party, when installing the charging station, the Defendant obtained D’s consent by suggesting that “if the inside land is leased only in the name of the Gunpo-gu, 20% of the net profit, and will be allowed to work at the workplace.”

On February 11, 2015, the Defendant continued to obtain permission from a development restriction zone (new construction) around April 27, 2015 by applying for permission from a development restriction zone (new construction) in the name of D, as if D actually obtained permission, even though the Defendant was granted permission.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with D, interfered with the LPG charging business in Kimpo-si by fraudulent means, and installed facilities for residential, living convenience, and living of residents in development restriction zones in a development restriction zone by fraud or other improper means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The interrogation protocol of D (No. 17 No. 5 of the evidence list) as to D.