The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding (the violation of the Farmland Act) that the Defendant led to the confession of this part of the crime by an investigative agency, and the fact that the Defendant gradually increased the installation of containers from January 2, 2010, and recognized the diversion of the farmland of this case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall not, in the case of a violation of the Farmland Act, install structures for the purpose of profit-making without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency in the development-restricted zone. The applicable provisions of the Act shall not be construed as “Article 57(2) and the former part of Article 34(1) of the Farmland Act concerning the designation and management of development-restricted zones” and “Article 31(2)1 and Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Development-Restricted Zones” and “No person shall install structures for the purpose of profit-making in the development-restricted zone.”

Nevertheless, on January 2010, the Defendant engaged in the warehouse service business with the trade name of “G” in the 2,912 square meters of the Hanam-si, Hanam-si, and two parcels, which are the development restriction zone, and installed a container 10 container around June 29, 2012 without obtaining permission from the competent authority in order to install a container for storing goods and to receive storage fees. From that time, the Defendant installed a container 10 container from that time to July 12, 2012.

As a result, the Defendant installed structures in the development restriction zone without obtaining permission from the competent authorities for the purpose of profit-making.

“A request for permission to amend a bill of amendment was made in exchange for each other, and this Court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

As examined below, the modified facts charged are found guilty, and this part and the judgment of the court below are convicted.