All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. around August 12, 2016, Defendants (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles issued a corrective order for restoration to the original state with respect to the act of piling-in and piling-in, etc. against Defendant A, and Defendant A did not provide Defendant A with prior notification and opportunity to present opinions while taking the following administrative disposition: (a) Defendant A did not comply with this procedure’s illegal corrective order; and (b) Defendant A did not comply with this procedure.

This does not constitute a violation of the Special Measures Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of violating the above Special Measures Act due to the failure to implement the restoration order, among the facts charged against the Defendants, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The sentence that the court below rendered against the Defendants is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the Defendants (Defendant A: 4 months of imprisonment and 4 months of imprisonment, Defendant B: fine 20 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s each sentence imposed on the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. If a judgment of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles on the defendants' assertion was revoked by an ex post facto administrative litigation procedure, such administrative disposition shall lose its validity retroactively to the time of the disposition, and it is reasonable to view that the administrative disposition became final and conclusive that there was no obligation to obey such administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do4239, Feb. 5, 199, etc.). However, even if an administrative disposition is unlawful in any manner, the effect of the administrative disposition shall not be denied without permission on the ground of any defect, except where there is a reason that the defect is deemed null and void due to significant and obvious defects, even if it is not the same as the res judicata effect of the judgment, but if the defect of the administrative act is merely a reason that the administrative disposition is revoked, the validity of the disposition shall not be denied unless the disposition is revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do4239, Feb.