The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not use a constructed warehouse for the purpose of temporarily using farmland for the purpose of storing agricultural materials from the Seongbuk-gu office for the purpose of storing them. However, it was used as a space where part of the above warehouse and persons who set up himself/herself and farmers live together with a small and medium wave and book, which did not violate the purpose of temporary use permission, and thus does not violate the purpose of temporary use permission, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the Defendant’s application for temporary use permission on the ground that part of the above warehouse was used as a residential facility is obvious and serious defect is null and void.

In addition, in a similar case, there is a case where an application for extension is permitted after restoring the original state in the warehouse of this case, and even at the time of the application for the extension of the previous transfer, there was a sof and book that the defendant used in the warehouse of this case, and as if the public official in charge of the Daegu Suwon-gu Office was trusted that the defendant would be permitted to apply for extension in the event of a sof and book, the defendant's continued use of farmland as a warehouse site even though the period of temporary use permission was not extended, it is an act that does not violate social norms as well as social reasonableness.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the illegality is excluded, or that the defendant mispers him that such an act is not a crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., the warehouse of this case divided into two parts, and the part corresponding to 1/3 of the above warehouse was used as a warehouse storing agricultural materials, etc. However, the remaining part corresponding to 2/3.