Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Defendant

A is the representative director of corporation B, and Defendant B is a corporation with the purpose of real estate sales agency in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. A person who intends to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall not divert farmland without obtaining permission to divert farmland, or shall not obtain permission to divert farmland by fraudulent or other illegal means;

Nevertheless, from May 1, 2019 to August 22, 2019, the Defendant used a temporary building for the purpose of the model house constructed in the said farmland to divert farmland without obtaining permission for the diversion of farmland, despite the expiration of the period of permission for temporary use for other purposes from May 1, 2019 to August 22, 2019, 2,390 square meters before Kimpo-si, E, 1,898 square meters before E, and 2,390 square meters before G, 2,541 square meters before G, and 1,577 square meters before H, to April 30, 2019.

2. Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant, committed the same offense as described in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A public official’s statement, a partial certificate of registered matters (stock company B), a prior notice of restoration (D, E,F,G, H), a notice of restoration due to a violation of the Farmland Act (StateB), a written application, etc. [the defendant and his defense counsel] requesting the land owner at Kimpo-si to purchase the land directly with an excessive purchase price in lieu of consent to use the land, and delayed the purchase of the said land. The purchase of the said land was delayed, and accordingly, the permission to divert farmland was not obtained even after the expiration of the permission period for temporary use of the farmland (the defendant already obtained consent to use the land from another parcel number).

It argues that there was no intention of violation of the Farmland Act at the time of crime.

(b).