The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The land in this case was already lost its function as farmland at the time when the Defendant, by mistake of fact, leased B and C land (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of strike, and thus cannot be deemed farmland, and there was a creation of a camping ground.

shall not be subject to permission for diversion of farmland.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, on May 2016, leased the instant land to 800,00 won a month, which was farmland patroled in the early May 2016.

Although a person who intends to divert farmland has obtained permission from the competent authority to divert farmland, on May 2016, the Defendant created a 1,191 square meters of the total area of the instant land as a place for camping without permission from the competent authority, and diverted the farmland to a place for camping without permission from the competent authority.

3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by comprehensively taking account of the macroscopic evidence.

4. Determination of the party deliberation (determination of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts)

(a)whether land is farmland under the Farmland Act must be determined by the actual phenomenon of the land concerned, regardless of the land category in the public account book;

Therefore, if the land category on the public record loses the present state of farmland as farmland and the state of the loss is no longer deemed temporary, it does not constitute “farmland” and as a result, it does not constitute an object of permission to divert farmland under the farmland Act [see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6703, Apr. 16, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6703, Apr. 16, 2009; the public prosecutor asserts that the farmland preservation and use Act was repealed on Dec. 22, 1994 and the farmland Act was enacted, and the definition of “farmland” was changed, and thus, the legal category of farmland is a rice field, paddy field, and orchard, and farmland is a farmland subject to permission to divert farmland. However, in light of the purport of the above Supreme Court precedents, the above Supreme Court precedents, supra, argues that farmland is subject to permission to divert farmland.