The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A A Fine of 500,00 won, Defendant B of this case is fined of 1.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant B, and E: each fine of KRW 3 million) is unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the Defendants reflects the Defendants, it is difficult for the Defendants to form their family, and in particular, Defendant A is obliged to provide support to their daughters with the first grade intellectual disorder; Defendant B completed the restoration of the first grade four out of five Dongs around December 2012, the transfer of the instant summary indictment; Defendant A suspended the period until around May 2013 when Defendant A moves into a rental house; Defendant E returned the remainder to the original state on or around May 2013; Defendant E returned the original state to the first priority police on December 2013; Defendant E’s restoration to the original state and completion of the restoration to the original state; and equity with the punishment of Co-Defendant D and C, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat excessive.

3. In conclusion, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendants' appeal is with merit, and it is decided as follows after the pleading.

[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence against the defendants recognized by this court are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Article 140 subparag. 1, Article 56(1)2 (a) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, Articles 57(1), 34(1) (a) of the Farmland Act, Article 111 subparag. 1, and Article 14(1) of the Building Act (a point of new construction of a non-owned building);

B. Defendant B: Article 140 Subparag. 1, Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (the point of changing the form and quality of a non-owned farmland), Articles 57(1), 34(1) of the Farmland Act (the point of diversion of the use of a non-owned farmland) and Article 142 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.