A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time of issuance of a certificate of qualification for acquiring farmland, had the intent to use farmland (7,976 square meters), such as Jeju-si E (6,540 square meters), F (1,126 square meters), G (310 square meters), and farmland (7,976 square meters), which is three lots of farmland (7,976 square meters), for agricultural management at the time of issuance of a certificate of qualification for acquiring farmland, and had both intent to conduct LPG charging projects with permission for liquefied petroleum gas charging projects for part of the farmland in this case, so there was no purpose to own farmland in violation of the restriction on farmland ownership under Article 6 of the Farmland Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, the lower court alleged that the Defendant did not obtain a certificate of farmland acquisition qualification concerning the farmland of this case by fraud or other improper means, and the lower court’s determination as to the allegation of non-violation (negative) refers to “the purpose of ownership of farmland in violation of the provisions relating to the restriction on farmland ownership under Article 59 subparag. 1 of the Farmland Act for the purpose of ownership of farmland in violation of the restriction on farmland ownership under Article 6 of the farmland Act,” and is prohibited even if the Defendant wishes to own farmland in advance as an exception to the restriction on farmland ownership under Article 6 subparag. 2 of the Farmland Act, which is an exception to the restriction on farmland ownership by a person who uses or uses the farmland for his own agricultural management, even if he/she wishes to own farmland in advance.

The Defendant’s assertion was rejected for the following reasons.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the primary reason for the Defendant to own the farmland of this case.