The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the violation of farmland law), and five parcels (hereinafter “the instant land”) are classified as the answer. However, the Defendant leased the said land to operate it as a camping place, and had already lost the phenomenon of farmland before it was operated as a camping place, and thus, it does not constitute farmland under the Farmland Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, fine of two million won, observation of protection, community service work 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to which land constitutes farmland under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Agriculture and Forestry Act shall be made according to the actual phenomenon of the pertinent land regardless of the land category in the public record, regardless of the land category in the public record, and therefore, the land category on the public record is all the land category on the public record.

Even if a person loses the phenomenon of farmland as farmland and the state of loss is not temporary, the land shall no longer fall under “farmland” as referred to in the farmland law.

However, if the state of loss of farmland is temporary, and if it is possible to facilitate the restoration of farmland to its original state as farmland because the state of loss is merely temporary, it shall be deemed that the land still falls under farmland as provided in the farmland law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6703, Apr. 16, 2009). (2) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the trial court, it is reasonable to deem that the land in this case constitutes farmland as provided in the law.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① The former lessee of the instant land operated the “X Campping site” on the instant land, and on April 28, 2015, W, a lessee of the instant land, changed the form and quality of the instant land against Gwangju-si D and N on the ground that he/she changed the form and quality of the instant land.