However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the District Court for the Defendant’s District Court on April 21, 2015, and the judgment was finalized on October 21, 2015.

The defendant is a former civil engineering business operator, B is the owner of land in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and D is the person who cultivates the above farmland.

Although a person who intends to divert farmland obtained permission from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Defendant, in collusion with B and D on February 2015, performed an act of raising the farmland above the level of water used in the irrigation dog of the farmland concerned without obtaining permission to divert farmland of 3,923 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, which is an agricultural promotion area.

Accordingly, in collusion with B and D, the Defendant diverted farmland in an agricultural promotion area without obtaining permission to divert farmland.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning B and D;

1. Written accusation, land cadastre, and written confirmation of individual land price;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 57 (1) and 34 (1) of the Farmland Act that choose to impose a sentence, Article 30 of the Criminal Act and choice of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is to expand the area of the land for the illegal diversion of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence and not yet restore to its original state, and the defendant actually led to the illegal banking of this case.

Although the Defendant is a crime of this kind, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being subject to suspended sentence (this Court Decision 2013Da116). The Defendant has the same criminal records with the same criminal records.

However, under the favorable circumstances in which the defendant led to the crime and is not the owner of the land of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances and contents of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions.