The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The favorable circumstances include the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime, that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than the punishment imposed once under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and that the defendant deposited the full amount of farmland diversion charges exempted from the Korea Agricultural and Fishing Villages Corporation.

However, the crime of this case, however, the defendant newly constructed a factory on farmland and was exempted from farmland preservation charges by deceiving the competent authorities as if he had operated the manufacturing business directly as the commercial person or a small enterprise, and the number of crimes is not only poor, but also 16 times, the total amount of exempted charges is approximately KRW 430,000,000,000, and the profits recognized by the defendant himself are not less than KRW 1 billion.

As long as the buyer purchased the farmland in a converted state in accordance with his own account and judgment, there was property damage to the purchaser.

It may be difficult to evaluate the purchaser (in this respect, the purchaser suffered damage).

The court below's reasoning is inappropriate) The crime of this case is ultimately likely to cause losses to the financial resources of the country that should be used for the purpose of fostering the world and the balanced development of the national economy by abusing the laws and regulations, and at the same time, causes losses to the efficient management and preservation of farmland to be protected in the farmland law by diverting a large number of farmland, and thus, it is deemed that the damage is extensive, and

must be viewed.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc. as shown in the arguments of the lower court and the deliberation of the lower court, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (two years to six years), the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable for the lower court to determine the sentence for one year, which is lower than the lower limit of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines.

3. Conclusion.