The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant served as the N of the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation (hereinafter “Promotion Foundation”), but is not a manager with authority to remove or reinstate the structure of this case, and thus does not constitute a manager under Article 30(1) of the Development Restriction Zone Act.

In addition, the Promotion Foundation lost a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant corrective order filed against the subordinate Si, and followed the procedure for removal of the instant structure. On October 10, 2017, the Promotion Foundation completed removal of the instant structure with the approval of the subordinate Si, thereby complying with the corrective order of the subordinate Si.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of legal principles or misconception of facts.

2. Determination:

A. From January 1, 2015 to October 2006, the Defendant was in charge of the C Management Office affiliated with the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation, which is a C Management Office affiliated with the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation, and was in charge of the structures, etc. installed in the correction place. On or around October 19, 2006, the Defendant did not comply with the corrective order issued by the head of the correction place, despite the fact that “the said structures are restored to their original state on the grounds of their violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones by June 10, 2016,” with respect to steel structure of size of 59.4 square meters established without the permission of the competent administrative agency from the Hanam-si, Si, and D, which is a development restriction zone.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

C. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following facts are acknowledged. (A) The lower court’s installation of the instant structure to the Promotion Foundation on April 12, 2016 violates Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.