A. In fact, the Defendant’s act of changing the form and quality of the instant land or filling-up by mistake is an act of not obtaining permission from the competent authority under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, since the change of land category was accompanied by the change of land category, and the fundamental function of the land is not changed or damaged.

In addition, Article 51 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act excludes the change between the “responding” and the “responding” from the grounds for exclusion is unconstitutional against the principle of equality under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, on different premises, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (the Defendant’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion that “it is difficult to see the land category of this case as an orchard, and it constitutes a case where permission is not required because it is difficult to see it as an orchard, and it is a situation where the land category has been changed before the answer).”

However, the allegation of mistake of the above facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it was raised after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, and even if ex officio is examined, the Defendant filled up the instant land to change it to a dry field.

According to each certified copy of the instant land’s registry, the land category of the instant land can be recognized on January 19, 2015 to be changed to an orchard. As such, Defendant 1’s allegation of mistake is without merit. (b) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant alleged that the above facts were identical to the assertion of mistake in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, and Article 51(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that Article 51(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act should be excluded.