Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the D Training Center located in the Si Population C when the defendant is allowed.

Before about 20 years, the Defendant did not obtain permission to occupy and use a small river at the location E of the wife population, and occupied a small river without permission (construction of a bridge).

Accordingly, on January 25, 2016, the Defendant violated the above order, such as failing to restore the original state, even though the Defendant received an order to “the advance notification of restoration and change of the original state for illegal occupancy of land for a small river,” and on April 1, 2016, to “the demand for restoration from illegal occupancy of land for a small river” from the head of the management office of the above small river.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 27 Subparag. 4 and Article 17 of the former Small River Conservation Act (Amended by Act No. 13919, Jan. 27, 2016); the selection of a fine for criminal facts; the selection of a fine, under Articles 27 Subparag. 4 and 17 of the former Small River Conservation Act, which has

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, at the time of the construction of the instant bridge, heard the answer that no procedure is required to obtain permission from the management agency, and installed the instant bridge for more than 20 years, and did not receive any question from the management agency even though the instant bridge was used.

The Defendant paid the user fee for the state-owned land on which the bridge of this case is located to the office of the host population, and the training center of this case, including the bridge of this case, was conducted in 2001.

Tter was aware of the existence of the instant bridge.

In light of this point, the management agency impliedly accepted the installation and use of the bridge of this case and granted the defendant the trust to the defendant.

As such, the order of restoration to the original state of this case would impair the Plaintiff’s trust that the instant bridge will continue to be installed and used.