The judgment below

Part of acquittal shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed to the defendant.

1. In a case where there are several orders of the judgment, such as partial convictions and partial acquittals, etc. on the case prosecuted at the same time for concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, the part included in the one part may be separately appealed from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive, and where only the prosecutor appealeds on the part of the concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the first instance which pronounced not guilty and not guiltys the part which was not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor, the part of the judgment of conviction which was final and conclusive as the expiration of the appeal period, is only a public prosecution on the part of the judgment of not guilty, and where it is reversed by the appellate court, only the part of the judgment of not guilty shall be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). The court below found the defendant guilty of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Determination and Management of the Development Restriction Areas in Busan Shipping Daegu Land among the charges against the defendant, and the remainder of the facts charged.

In this regard, only the portion not guilty is appealed, and the scope of appeal is stipulated in the petition of appeal submitted by the prosecutor (the 126th page of the record of trial). However, the grounds for appeal stated in the prosecutor’s petition of appeal and the reasoning of appeal are erroneous and misunderstanding the facts as to the portion not guilty, and thus, the conviction portion among the judgment below cannot be

As to the guilty portion, both the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the conviction was determined separately as it is and excluded from the scope of this court.

2. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), it is recognized that the Defendant cut the land of 146 square meters out of 271 square meters in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant land”), and this does not aim at farming, and thus, in a development restriction zone without permission or reporting.