A. A manager or Mail, who has been installed by a defendant misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, falls under a field office or incidental facilities installed for a main purpose project under Article 36 (1) 2 of the Farmland Act and other facilities corresponding thereto, and may temporarily use for other purposes within the period necessary for the implementation of a main purpose project under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not violate the farmland law, and the notification of revocation of permission for development to the defendant is illegal, so it is not a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas subject to Development Restriction.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the manager and Mail recorded in the facts constituting "a temporary building used by the defendant for keeping harvested material or farming material produced in orchard" under Article 36 (1) 1 of the Farmland Act, which is not subject to a building permit or building report under the Building Act, and constitutes "a simple agricultural and fishery livestock industry facility (excluding improvement facilities and production facilities for agricultural and livestock products under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Building Act)". Even if the above manager and Mail constitutes a facility under Article 36 (1) 2 of the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, even if it constitutes a temporary use of farmland for the above purpose or a person who intends to temporarily use farmland for a certain period, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the defendant is the court below.