Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On July 3, 2015, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the competent administrative authority around July 3, 2015, laid down a part of 2,800 square meters of land outside of 4,284 square meters of land outside the agricultural promotion area, which is farmland, using a dump truck, with a height of about two meters, changed the form and quality of land at the same time, and diverted farmland at the same time by cutting a reinforced earth retaining wall of about 2 meters in height and about 50 meters in length.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Article 140 subparag. 1, Article 56(1)2 (a) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (a point of an unauthorized development act), Article 57(2), and Article 34(1) of the Farmland Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order is that, in order to obtain certification of farmland acquisition qualification, the defendant filled up not more than 2 meters for the entire C at the order of the two sides of the office. Thus, it cannot be deemed a violation of the law. The defendant's violation of the law is limited to approximately 100§³ of reinforced earth retaining wall.

However, according to the result of the order to submit a document as to the quantity of land in Yongsan-si, there is no fact of ordering the filling of land for the purpose of verifying the qualification for acquiring farmland, and the filling of land within 2 meters permissible pursuant to the exceptions of Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the guidelines for the operation of permission for development activities (the directives of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) should be “for cultivation.” Even according to the defendant’s assertion, the defendant purchased the land for the purpose of development activities through auction, and the defendant did not do so for the purpose of actual cultivation, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as an exception under the above provisions.