[2] The meaning of "change in the form and quality of land" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Urban Planning Act

[3] The case holding that the act of cutting off the leased land as a whole and laying off a large quantity of earth with earth covering the excavated machine constitutes an act of changing the form and quality of land under Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Urban Planning Act

[2] "Change in the form and quality of the land" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 2000) means the act of changing the form and quality of the land by cutting, raising, or stopping the land, etc., and it is required that the form and quality of the land be changed externally and its alteration is difficult to restore to its original state.

[3] The case holding that the act of cutting off the whole leased land as a stop work and covering a large quantity of soil with excavation equipment constitutes a form and quality alteration of land under Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Urban Planning Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200)

1. As to the primary facts charged

The so-called "employee or other employee" under Article 93 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 2000), which is a joint penal provision, shall be deemed to include not only a person who enters into an employment contract with a corporation or an individual but also a person who is directly or indirectly under the control or supervision of a corporation or an individual while using a corporation or an individual as an assistant to his/her business (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do344 of May 14, 1993). However, solely on the ground that a land owner may exercise his/her right against a person who rents and uses the land, a lessee of the land shall not be deemed to be an employee or other employee of the land owner.

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the defendant was not in the status of the defendant's agent, employee, or other employees as provided in Article 93 of the former Urban Planning Act with regard to the primary facts of the case where the defendant was found not guilty on the ground that he was not in the status of the defendant's agent, employee, etc. as provided in Article 93 of the former Urban Planning Act, in light of the records of the judgment below and the above legal principles, the above measures of the court below are proper, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint penal provisions or incomplete deliberation as alleged in the grounds for appeal. Accordingly, this part of the grounds for appeal is not acceptable.

2. On the ancillary facts charged

The court below found Defendant’s agent not guilty on the ground that there was no evidence that Nonindicted Party 1’s act under Article 4(1)2 of the former Urban Planning Act, Article 5(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16891, Jul. 1, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 16891, Jul. 1, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 1689, Feb. 1, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Nov. 1, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 1, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 1, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 20130, Feb. 1, 2001) did not change the form and quality of the land.

"Change in the form and quality of land" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the former Urban Planning Act means the act of changing the form and quality of land due to cutting, banking, or suspension, etc., and it is required that the form and quality of land should be changed externally and the alteration thereof be in difficult condition to restore to original state due to such change (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3209 delivered on March 10, 1995, etc.). In this case, the non-indicted 1, after renting the land in this case, performed a stop work to fill a dry field cryle for the entire land in this case by using the dododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododo.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding that the form and quality of the land of this case was not changed solely on the facts charged that the land of this case was normal operations, but further examining the judgment below in light of the records, there is no evidence that the act of the non-indicted 1 by piling the sn beam beam, etc. constitutes the act under Article 4 (1) 2 of the former Urban Planning Act, Article 5 (2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, or the non-indicted 2 conspired with the non-indicted 1 and the change of the form and quality of the land without the authority's permission. Thus, it is proper in concluding that the court below acquitted the defendant of the preliminary charges of this case, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even if the non-indicted 1's act did not make the above erroneous judgment as to

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)