Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misapprehension of the legal principles, the instant facilities were used as parking lots when agricultural products were not constructed.

Even if the purpose of the creation and the actual condition of the use thereof is to achieve more incidental objectives, the act of installing the facility in this case cannot be deemed as a violation of the Agricultural Land Management Act.

Even if the Defendant installs a parking lot in an agricultural promotion zone, this is not a simple parking lot, but a building of the instant facility for the reasonable and efficient use of farmland by creating a building site for agricultural products, so there was no intention to violate the farmland law.

In addition, the Defendant had conducted research and research by the public officials in charge at the time of the establishment of the instant facilities, and entered the Gun Council with the authority to permit the establishment of the instant facilities, and there was no possibility of perception of illegality that the Defendant’s act would be in violation of the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, and therefore, the Defendant’s act was by mistake of law, and there was a justifiable reason for mistake.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case are not proven, and the defendant is not guilty, but the court below which found the defendant guilty has erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 7,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion that the construction site of agricultural products and the common village parking lot was not in violation of the farmland law, the lower court is the owner of farmland, etc. in the aggregate of 7,604 square meters in the attached Table 14 square meters in the lower judgment, which is an agricultural promotion area, including F field 972 square meters, (hereinafter “farmland, etc. in the instant agricultural promotion area”), and the Defendant, the representative of E-Gun, installed parking lots and agricultural products construction sites on farmland, etc. in the instant agricultural promotion area around September 11, 2009.