All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Article 56(4) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) provides that “any of the following acts may be conducted without obtaining permission for development activities.” Article 56(3) of the same Act provides that “other minor acts prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 53 subparag. 2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that “The weight in an urban area or a district unit planning zone does not exceed 50 tons, volume does not exceed 50 cubic meters, volume does not exceed 50 cubic meters, and construction of a structure, the horizontal projection area of which does not exceed 50 square meters, shall be deemed minor acts, and thus, a separate permission for development is not required.”

Therefore, if the site for a factory located in the Masan-si F (hereinafter referred to as the “factory of this case”) is a district unit planning zone and the site for the factory of this case does not meet the standard under subparagraph 2 of the above Enforcement Decree, a separate permission for development is not required, but it is not sufficient to examine whether the retaining wall of this case does not meet the above standard, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the charges, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant A had the possibility of changing the current related administrative office and design, and even after the fact, if the design drawings of the factory of this case are modified to reflect the installation of a reinforced and reinforced earth retaining wall, Defendant A’s act does not constitute an act of development without permission. However, Defendant A’s act does not constitute an act of development without permission, and the judgment of the court below which found Defendants guilty of the facts charged against the Defendants was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The proviso of Article 57(1) of the National Land Planning Act by misapprehending the legal doctrine is “Article 56.”