2. According to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act and Article 2(3)2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, the act of converting livestock pens and their affiliated facilities into the field of farmland. Thus, the act of converting the farmland of 2,325 square meters of paddy field, 621 square meters of paddy field, and 119 square meters of paddy field, which the Defendant used as a site for the fish shed, constitutes a crime violating Articles 57(2) and 34(1) of the Farmland Act, although the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below held that Article 2 of the Farmland Act, "farmland", "farmland", "farmland actually used as farmland cultivation area or perennial plants regardless of the legal land category," and "farmland diversion" shall be respectively defined as "farmland is used for purposes other than agricultural production or improvement of farmland, such as the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants," and therefore, whether land is farmland under the Farmland Act shall be determined according to the actual status of the land concerned, regardless of the land category on the public record, regardless of its land category.

Therefore, if the land whose land category is previously owned by the public register is lost its phenomenon as farmland and its lost condition cannot be deemed temporary, it does not constitute “farmland” any more, and as a result, it does not constitute a subject of permission to divert farmland under the Farmland Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do6703 Decided April 16, 2009) premised on the legal principle, C, the mother of the Defendant, purchased each of the instant land from around 1988 to around 1989, and on October 8, 1992, the mother of the Defendant purchased each of the instant land.