Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall construct a building, change the purpose of use, install a structure, change the form and quality of land, etc. in a development restriction zone without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu.

Nevertheless, on March 201, the Defendant illegally changed the form and quality of an access road to agricultural machinery by putting a concrete (4x7,28 square meters) on the farmland (land category) owned by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a development-restricted zone of the Seoul Metropolitan City, which is a development-restricted zone of the Seoul Metropolitan City on March 1, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. The accusation book, an illegal investigation report, a location map, and current status photograph;

1. A written petition;

1. Confirmation of land use plan;

1. Application of land cadastre statutes;

1. Article 32 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and the proviso to Article 12 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development concerning Facts constituting an offense;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act on the inducement of workhouses argues that since the instant land is farmland, it can be established as an access road for agricultural machinery without obtaining permission. Thus, each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court may recognize the fact that the instant land is designated as a development restriction zone. As such, even if the instant land is used as farmland, the form and quality cannot be unlawfully altered without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.