The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of two million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Although the land category on the public record “former L,” which was 423 square meters in Pyeongtaek-gun of misunderstanding of facts, is not actually used as farmland, it does not constitute “farmland” under the Farmland Act. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of violating the Farmland Act concerning the above land among the facts charged against Defendant A, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below on the sentence against Defendant A of misappropriation of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution and two million won of fine in August) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of Defendant E (a fine of KRW 5 million) against Defendant E is too unreasonable.

C. Although the prosecutor (defendant B) fully recognizes that Defendant B was given KRW 35 million under the pretext of solicitation to the relevant public officials in connection with the construction permit affairs, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A’s summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant Company A’s 423m20 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located outside the Agricultural Promotion Zone;

A dry field is owned by a dry field. Any person who owns farmland outside an agricultural promotion zone must obtain permission to divert farmland. Nevertheless, Defendant A did not obtain permission from the competent authority for diversion of farmland; from April 2012 to May 201 of the same year, the farmland was diverted by installing and using a parking lot with a 251 square meter wide of the said dry field packed. (2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in accordance with the evidence of the Si.

The term "farmland" as referred to in the Farmland Act means the land actually used for the cultivation of crops or for the cultivation of perennial plants regardless of the legal category of land, or the above land.