A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. A person who intends to divert farmland in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes shall obtain permission from the competent authorities;

Nevertheless, from September 13, 2014 to September 9, 2016, the Defendant operated a secondhand shop in the name of Gyeonggi-si (former) in Gwangju-si, a farmland outside the agriculture promotion area, with the trade name of “E”, and used it as a field yard without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

Accordingly, the Defendant diverted farmland without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

2. Any person who intends to alter purposes of a building approved for its use in violation of the Building Act, shall obtain permission from the competent authorities;

Nevertheless, the Defendant used a stable of 260 square meters in a warehouse without obtaining permission from the competent authorities at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the defendant changed the use of the building without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement;

1. A written accusation, a location map, on-site photographs, land register, etc., official document, lease contract, business registration certificate, and a contract for real estate trade;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Article 57 (2), Article 34 (1) of the Farmland Act (unauthorized diversion of farmland outside an agricultural promotion area) concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 110 subparagraph 1, and 19 (2) of the Building Act (unauthorized alteration, etc. of use outside an urban area);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that the head of the business was delayed due to the seller's circumstances, and the present completion of the business is considered).