[1] The time the alteration of form and quality of land in a development-restricted zone under the Urban Planning Act and the unauthorized diversion of farmland under the former Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act

[2] Criteria for determining whether a farmland constitutes "farmland" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act

[1] The crime of changing the form and quality of land within the development restriction zone without permission under Article 90 subparagraph 2 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 21 (2) of the former Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of December 22, 1994) and the crime of converting farmland by changing the form and quality of farmland without permission under Articles 21 (2) and 4 (1) of the former Farmland Preservation and Utilization Act is the crime of cutting, embankinging or stopping land or farmland within the development restriction zone or the crime of converting farmland into a state where it is difficult to restore the original state by reclaiming the form and quality of land through reclaiming public waters. At the same time, the crime is the crime immediately established and completed.

[2] Farmland subject to permission for diversion under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) shall be "farmland". Whether it falls under farmland as prescribed by Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the said Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the pertinent land regardless of the land category in the public record book. Whether it falls under farmland as prescribed by the said Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the pertinent land regardless of the land category in the public record, even if the land category in the public record is the answer, and if the land is lost as farmland and the state of loss is not deemed temporary,

[1] Articles 21(2) and 90 subparag. 2 of the Urban Planning Act, Articles 4(1) and 21(2) of the former Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994) / [2] Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Farmland Act, Act No. 4817, Dec. 22, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1477 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 312), Supreme Court Decision 93Do403 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2685), Supreme Court Decision 94Do3209 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 164), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1237 delivered on July 12, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2575) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18901 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2228)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 95No8498 delivered on May 30, 1996

All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

The crime of diversion of farmland without permission as provided in subparagraph 2 of Article 90 and Article 21(2) of the Urban Planning Act and the crime of changing the form and quality of land within a development restriction zone without permission as provided in Article 21(2) and Article 4(1) of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be established immediately by changing the form and quality of farmland to the form and quality of land within a development restriction zone without permission as provided in subparagraph 2 of Article 90 and Article 21(2) of the same Act and the crime of diversion of farmland without permission as provided in Articles 21(2) and 4(1) of the Farmland Conservation and Utilization Act shall be established by changing the form and quality of land within a development restriction zone into a state where it is difficult to restore the original state by reclaiming, embling, or reclaiming the public waters. It shall not be deemed that the land category of land in question falls under the category of farmland under Article 9 of farmland Conservation Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant was notified of a fine of KRW 3,00,00 as a summary order No. 93 high-level government support No. 24898 on February 5, 1994 and the order was finalized on March 26 of the same year after the lapse of the period for requesting formal trial. After the issuance of the above summary order, the order became final and conclusive on March 26 of the same year, and since from March 27, 1994 to September 2 of the same year, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant again committed a new change in the form and quality of the land within the urban planning zone, and thus, he was not guilty of the violation of the Urban Planning Act and the violation of the Farmland Preservation Act on September 2, 1994, since there was no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had a new change in the form and quality of the land during the period from March 27, 199 to September 2 of the same year.

2. Judgment on the defendant's appeal

According to the records, it is clear that the defendant did not submit the appellate brief even if he was served on June 25, 1996 of the notification of the receipt of the trial records, and there is no reason to discuss it.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)