Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. No person who violates the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall change the form and quality of land without obtaining permission for development activities;

Nevertheless, on September 2018, the Defendant cut the land from around 2,525 square meters on the land in Seongbuk-gun B, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-do without obtaining permission from the competent authority to engage in development activities, and performed development activities to change the form and quality of the land by using scras, etc.

2. No person who violates the Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall convert a mountainous district without obtaining permission therefor;

Nevertheless, on September 2018, the Defendant cut and diverted mountainous districts using approximately approximately 277 square meters of Gyeong-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-do, Seongbuk-do, Myeong-do, and used a scrain, etc., without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of statement of the police against D - On-site photographs, and basic matters on one parcel;

1. Accusation against the violator of the authorization or permission (development activities and conversion of a mountainous district) - statement, written confirmation, and field photographs;

1. Application of investigation reports (report on verification as to whether the mountainous district for exclusive use is a preserved mountainous district);

1. Article 140 subparagraph 1 of the relevant Article on criminal facts, Article 140 and Article 56 (1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act ( point of changing the form and quality of land without permission), subparagraph 1 of Article 53 and the main sentence of Article 14 (1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and the selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order has a record of punishment for the same kind of crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, there is no history of punishment heavier than a fine, and that the permission for the creation of farmland related to the crime of this case was obtained after the issuance of the summary order in this case, and that the restoration of the mountainous district related to the crime of paragraph 2 has been completed is favorable to the