The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

From April 24, 2012 to October 3, 2012, the Defendant occupied and used the above road by installing a bags without permission from the management agency in the city planning road designated by the Gangwon-do Governor of Gangwon-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 97 subparagraph 3 of the Road Act and Articles 38 (1) of the Act on the Selection of Punishment for Crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the fine of KRW 100,000, and KRW 50,000 per day: The defendant has no criminal power, and the circumstances of the instant case, etc. are considered) of the suspended sentence

1. The main points of the argument are as follows: (a) as the road management agency has actually implied permission for the occupation and use of the road by the Defendant, the Defendant should be dismissed from liability due to the lack of possibility of criticism.

2. An application for permission to occupy and use a road stating the purpose, place, size, period of occupation and use, structure or structure of facilities, etc. pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Road Act, and any person who intends to occupy and use a road shall obtain permission from the managing agency

However, since at least the Defendant did not go through the above statutory procedures at the time of the instant case, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of criticism against the Defendant solely on the ground that the Defendant actually occupied and used a road for a long time.

(A) Around January 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) removed the virtual phone upon the request of the Plaintiff to remove the virtual phone; and (b) on April 24, 2012, installed the virtual phone again). Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the defense counsel cannot be accepted.