The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant cannot be said to have failed to comply with the instant corrective order of the government market because he was under the following circumstances.

1) On May 31, 201, in the subscription market for non-compliance with the corrective order issued on May 31, 201, the government market was already punished, and was restored to its original state in accordance with the corrective order issued on January 2012. 2) On April 4, 2013, the government market operated the relocation work after the corrective order issued on April 4, 2013, and was in the situation of moving more than 70% of materials at the time of the instant accusation, and the relocation work was suspended due to the default by the customer, etc., and submitted a written opinion demanding the extension of the period for correction to the government market on April 29, 2013.

3) The parliamentary government market had issued a corrective order without providing the Defendant with a reasonable period of time necessary to correct the illegal act. B. The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant failed to comply with the corrective order without justifiable grounds despite the receipt of the lawful corrective order from the government market.

Since the facts are sufficiently recognized, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit. (A) The Defendant was controlled by the competent public official on the ground that the Defendant, as the owner of the Dong-si C-si 1,594 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the development-restricted area, on May 31, 201, on the ground that “The form and quality of the instant land was changed by doing flating work on the instant land without the permission of the competent public official, and on the instant land, two buildings (320 square meters), two offices (39 square meters), two offices (6 square meters), and a water tank (4 square meters) were constructed on the instant land.”

B. The Defendant’s above illegal construction act and change of land form and quality are subject to this Court.