The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. If the lessor and the Defendant loaded garbage on the ground of the instant land as indicated in the judgment of the court below in erroneous determination of facts (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant promised to dispose of garbage loaded with the leased deposit that the lessor paid by the lessor, and loaded garbage on the ground of the instant land. The lessor did not dispose of garbage loaded with the lessor, and the Defendant did not intend to commit a violation of the Farmland Act.

B. In the statement of grounds of appeal dated May 21, 2018, the Defendant stated that “I would not know whether I would violate the Farmland Act” was already used by the person E in the land violating the Farmland Act, and was naturally used by the lessor as a matter of course in leasing the land.” However, the Defendant appears to have asserted the error of law.

The defendant did not think that the defendant's act was an act violating the Farmland Act, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the mistake constitutes a mistake in law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the land category of the instant land appears to have been known to the Defendant as the “former” (Evidence No. 8-10, 37 pages); (ii) the Defendant loaded recycled goods on the instant land from around 2010 to June 2, 2017; and (iii) the Defendant is obvious that such act is not directly related to agricultural production or farmland improvement; and (iv) the Defendant has a claim for the return of lease deposit with the lessor from the police investigation conducted on September 7, 2017, which led the lessor to restore the instant land to its original state.