The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by four months of imprisonment.

(2) the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) Defendant 1: (a) removed existing cattle pens from land in Ycheon-si, and set land to newly build a stable; (b) stored concrete structures and blasting stone in the existing cattle shed, etc. to be used for a new stable; and (c) laid down a waterway on the existing waterway naturally formed; and (d) did not change the form and quality of land such as cutting off the above land, etc.

(B) Even if not,

Even if Defendant’s act constitutes a minor act exempt from permission for changing the form and quality of land under Article 53 subparag. 3 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

(C) The Defendant is growing a room around a waterway, such as the above land, around the pipe, and the remainder is used as a stock farm.

Therefore, the land such as the above is only the land for farmland or the stock farm, not the land for mountainous district.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the legal principles (as to the acquittal portion in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant’s act of piling up natural rocks, etc. on a lot of land C, etc. does not constitute a minor act that can be done without obtaining permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor has changed the facts charged in the instant case at the trial as follows, and the applicable legal provisions apply to “Article 53 subparag. 1 and 14(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, Articles 140 subparag. 1 and 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning Act, and Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act,” and as the subject of the adjudication is changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.