208 Highest 583 Ga. Violation of the Farmland Act

208, single 1284(combined)(b) special provisions for designation and management of development-restricted areas.

Violation of the Law of the Court

1.(a)(b) Al (in 48 years, south), and XX;

2. (b) A2 (44 years old, South) and advice of XX;

Kim Jong-mun

Attorney Kim Jae-sung, and Gyeong-hee (Saek for the defendant)

January 16, 2009

Defendant A1 and Defendant A2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fines for 50,00,000, and Article 2-C. of the judgment of the court below with respect to the crime No. 1. 1. b. by imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months and by imprisonment for 6 months, respectively.

Where a defendant A1 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 60,000 won into one day: Provided, That a fractional amount shall be one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant A2 shall be suspended.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

Defendant A1 is the chief of XX company located in the Busan X, who is in charge of the direction and supervision of the management, improvement and repair of the whole facilities of XX company on November 14, 2007 and is sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months on November 27, 2007 due to the violation of the Act on Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and the violation of the Building Act, and the violation of the Building Act, and has the same criminal records of 14 times of the grace period. Defendant A2, as the advisor of the above XX company, takes charge of the management, maintenance and repair of the whole facilities of XX company.

1. Defendant A1’s violation of the Farmland Act

Defendant A1 is widely known to X in Busan, and is one of the owners of RiXx numbers such as the above inspection and co-owners of Riyy land such as the above inspection.

Anyone who intends to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry after obtaining confirmation from the Farmland Management Committee having jurisdiction over the location of the farmland.

Nevertheless, on October 31, 2007, the Defendant used 2,000 square meters among the above x numbers x numbers 3,555 square meters and 2,950 square meters among the above xx numbers 3,55 square meters and yypland 2,950 square meters and 2,009 square meters as a parking lot for tourists and new-do parking vehicles.

2. Defendants’ violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development

(a) Laying a stone tower;

No one shall install any structure in a development restriction zone.

Nevertheless, around November 30, 2006, the Defendants installed 6 meters of a structure by piling up stone on forests and fields located in Busan X area, which is a development restriction zone. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to build structures in the development restriction zone.However, construction of a rest room was done by the Defendants.

No one shall install neighborhood living facilities without obtaining permission from the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

Nevertheless, in around 2006, the Defendants installed a building of 70 square meters for the purpose of a tent room by being aground in a light steel structure without obtaining permission from the head of the X area on the land located in the Busan X area, which is a development restriction zone.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to build a neighborhood living facility without obtaining permission from the X head.

(c) Opening of roads;

No person shall change the form and quality of land in a development restriction zone.

Nevertheless, on April 208, 2008, the Defendants opened a road by spreading soil on the land located in the Busan X area, which is a development-restricted zone for the first time.

As a result, Defendants conspired to change the form and quality of land in development restriction zones.

Summary of Evidence

omitted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant Al: Articles 57(1) and (3), 34(1) of the Farmland Act (the violation of the Farmland Act, the concurrent punishment of imprisonment and fines), Articles 30 subparag. 1 and 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (the wholly amended by Act No. 8975, Mar. 21, 2008); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and Management due to Construction of Rading and Rests), Articles 31 subparag. 1 and 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the selection of imprisonment), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management

Defendant A2: Article 30 subparag. 1 and Article 11 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (wholly amended by Act No. 8975 of Mar. 21, 2008), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development due to Establishment and Construction of Rests), Articles 31 subparag. 1 and 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development due to Construction of Roads, the choice of imprisonment);

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (latter part) and Article 39 (1) (A) of the Criminal Act (Article 1 and Article 2-1 (b) of the Judgment with respect to Defendant A1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account that the defendant A2 has no record of being punished by imprisonment without prison labor or more, etc.)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant A1 and Defense Counsel's argument

Defendant A1 and his defense counsel asserted that among the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance, in the case of X yy in the case of the original Defendant A1, B, and C, three parties agreed to divide the above real estate into sectional ownership in around 2006 and obtained a construction permit regarding the part that Defendant A1 owns by specifying the specific ownership of the above real estate, the part that Defendant A1 violated the Farmland Act using the parking lot is nothing more than 42 meters.

On the other hand, the crime of violating the Farmland Act due to the diversion of farmland is not an identification crime that can be committed only by the farmland owner. According to the above evidence, including Defendant A1’s statement, Defendant A1 raised the purchase fund necessary to purchase the above real estate. Defendant A1’s son who is registered as co-owner of the above real estate can be seen as Defendant A1’s son, Defendant A1’s son, and Defendant A1’s son who is the former part of Defendant A1, and the president of the Council of the XX, and the agreement between the above co-owners to divide ownership of the above real estate is deemed to have been made for the purpose of obtaining a building permit on the above real estate. Defendant A1 recognized that the above real estate was used as a parking lot for two to three years from the prosecutor’s statement. Thus, the above real estate is farmland provided for the operation of the XX company, and Defendant A1, a well known person of XX company, used the above real estate as a parking lot

Defendant A1, with the reason of sentencing, committed several offenses of this case on the grounds of violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and the Food Sanitation Act, despite having been sentenced to a suspended sentence on buildings within XX company, change of form and quality, changes in form and quality of surrounding land, installation of structures, sale of food, etc., Defendant A1 committed several offenses of this case at the same time. In light of these criminal records, Defendant A1 did not have any intent to comply with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in relation to the operation of XX company. While Defendant A was first visiting many tourists or domestic and foreign scenic persons, Defendant A1 did not appear to have been able to comply with the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development and the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Areas of Restricted Development and the Food Sanitation Act. However, this circumstance does not mean that Defendant A1’s repeated offenses of this case are justified, nor was Defendant A1’s restoration to the original state during the course of investigation or during trial. However, according to the above criminal records, Defendant A1 does not seem to be sentenced

Judges Freeboard