Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director operating a ready-mixed manufacturing factory called "B (State)" located in Sejong City. Defendant B is a corporation incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing ready-mixed. Defendant A, at around 07:00 on October 8, 2013, performed a construction work to remove E’s soil and sand using sckes without permission from a river management agency. Defendant B, the representative director, at the same time and place as above, violated the above provisions in relation to the business of Defendant B.

2. The fact that Defendant A performed removal work, such as earth and sand, at the time and place specified in the facts charged is acknowledged by Defendant A’s legal statement and the statement of accusation (20-23 pages of investigation records).

However, the River Act provides that "a person, other than a river management agency, may execute river works or the maintenance and repair of a river with permission from the river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, except as provided for in Articles 6, 9, and 28: Provided, That minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree are not subject to permission (Article 30); criminal punishment (Article 95, and Article 97 of the same Act) shall be imposed when performing construction works without permission (Article 95, and Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act). Meanwhile, the term "minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 30 (1) of the River Act refers to "daily maintenance and repair of a river which

The term "" is defined as "."

According to the photograph attached to the statement and accusation of the witness F (public officials in charge of Sejong Viewing G) as to the instant case, the work performed by the Defendant A at the time is merely the degree of walking back water and soil, and thus constitutes the daily maintenance and repair of the river that does not affect the structure of the river, and thus, it is recognized that the work performed by the Defendant A at the time constitutes the fact that falls under the daily maintenance and repair of the river that does not affect the structure of the river.