Nevertheless, on April 2003, the Defendant removed 660 square meters of 6,485 square meters of orchard 6,000, located outside the Agricultural Promotion Area, and constructed one warehouse for the purpose of storage of farming equipment and for the selection of sublime and one house on the same site, and used it as a residential and warehouse until December 26, 2012.

In this respect, the Defendant diverted farmland without obtaining permission.

2. The form of “the diversion of farmland” as referred to in Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 7335 of Jan. 14, 2005) can be determined as follows: First, there are cases where farmland is cut, filled-up, or suspended, or where the form and quality of farmland is de facto changed and it is difficult to restore the farmland to its original state because it is difficult to restore to its original state because it is not only the external form but also the form and quality of farmland is changed, and second, there are cases where farmland is not accompanied by changes in external form or it is difficult to restore to its original state even if it is accompanied by changes in external form.

If the act of farmland diversion itself, like the former, loses the function of farmland as farmland by itself and uses the land thereafter for purposes other than agricultural production, etc., does not constitute “didition of farmland,” the crime of farmland diversion without permission should be deemed to be an immediate crime established upon the completion of such act and simultaneously completed.

However, if the act of using the relevant land for purposes other than agricultural production can still be seen as farmland diversion, such as in the latter case.