(a) The filling-up of farmland to raise crops in violation of the Farmland Act is not subject to reporting, because it is not the diversion of farmland;

In addition, the Defendant, using a legitimate circular soil shed under the Farmland Act, laid down the level of 1.5 meters, and submitted false evidence by asserting that D, who is an employee of Kimpo-si, was aware of circular sand in order to raise the performance of Kimpo-si, was a circular aggregate.

(1) In the written opinion of January 23, 2019, the defendant asserted that "the defendant shall be deemed to have ordered embling construction work and to have diverted farmland to the owner of farmland who has the right to use farmland, and the defendant who merely performed embling construction work on farmland upon the request of the owner of farmland shall not be deemed to have been a person intending to divert farmland." The defendant's use of recycled aggregates does not meet the recycling purpose and quality standards by use as prescribed by the Construction Waste Recycling Promotion Act, and thus, it shall be deemed to be subject to an administrative fine not exceeding 3 million won, and it shall be deemed to be unfair to rate it to the violation of the Farmland Act, etc. However, this cannot be deemed to have a legitimate ground for appeal, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, there is no reason).

Since banking by using circular earth is excluded from those subject to permission for development activities in order to depth crops in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, it is legitimate for the Defendant to fill up the level of 1.5 meters on the farmland in this case.

In the written opinion of January 23, 2019, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “it is unreasonable to determine that the above recycled aggregate is subject to permission by deeming it as a recyclable aggregate likely to cause water pollution or soil pollution even if the Defendant used recycled aggregate, even if it is not a recycled aggregate that did not pollute water quality or soil by discharging contaminated water,” but it is reasonable to deem it as such.