Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

Any person who occupies and uses land in a river area shall obtain permission from the river management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, from January 1, 2005 to July 27, 2015, the Defendant occupied land within the river area, including C and one parcel (D), without permission, and occupied land within the river area by failing to comply with the direction of restoration to the original state within the river area.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement to E (public officials interested in viewing and viewing);

1. A written accusation;

1. A public official's statement;

1. Land cadastre;

1. On-site photographs and lot cadastral maps;

1. Certificate of permission for use of parcel;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to applications for permission;

1. Article 95 of the relevant Act on criminal facts and subparagraph 5 of Article 95 of the River Act, which select a punishment, and Article 33 (1) 1 of the same Act;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: around December 2004, at the time when the defendant visited the competent government office in order to extend the permission to occupy and use the land within the area of the land outside C and one parcel of land (D), he confirmed that the area of the land was 345 square meters as a result of the survey conducted by the competent government office. Accordingly, the defendant requested the competent government office to refund the fee for the area exceeding 345 square meters for the past 20 years while discussing the extension of the permission to occupy and use the above land. The defendant failed to obtain the permission to occupy and use again after waiting for the competent government office. On June 2006, the defendant requested a meeting held in the jurisdiction of the auditor's office in the Silsi City to refund the amount of late payment of the occupancy and use fee or request the payment of the above land to do so, and the competent government office waited for resolution after its review.