209No277 A. Violation of the Farmland Act

B. Violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development

1. (a) . (b) A1 (in 48 years, south), and the chief of the dives inspection;

2. A2 (the 44-years, souths), dumnasium inspection adviser;

Defendants

Efficiencies

Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorneys Park Jong-soo, and exclusive-use crimes (private ships for Defendant A1)

Attorney Kim Jae-de (A2, a private election for defendant A2)

Busan District Court Decision 2008 Godan583, 2008 Decided January 16, 2009

Provided, That 1284(Joint Judgment) Judgment

March 26, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant A1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fines for 50,000,000 won, and fines for 7,000,000 won, and by fines for 15,00,000 won with respect to 2-A and 2-B of the holding, each of Defendant A2 shall be punished by fines for 15,00,00 won.

If the defendants fail to pay the above fines, each period of 60,000 won converted into one day shall be confined in each workhouse: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of the above imprisonment with labor for Defendant A1 shall be suspended. An order of provisional payment of an amount equivalent to each of the above fines shall be issued.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In light of the fact that the defendants committed the crime of this case with due care in the course of maintaining facilities, etc. while operating the temple, not committed the crime of this case in order to gain economic benefits, and that the defendant Al was the final manager of the inspection as the chief inspector of the inspection, but there was no time to directly take charge of administrative affairs, such as facility management, and that the defendant A2 was entrusted to others, such as the defendant A2, etc., and that all farmland and the roads, etc., which were unlawfully diverted due to the crime of this case, changed form and quality, were restored to their original state after the decision of the court below was made, etc., the sentencing of the court below (the crime of Articles 1 and 2, 1, 6 and 2, 50 million won in the judgment of the court below, 2, 2000 won in the imprisonment, 2,000 won in the judgment of the court below, 6 months in prison, and

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

The judgment of Defendant A1 on the grounds for appeal that the farmland was violated in the judgment of the court below, and the farmland was diverted to the farmland located outside the agriculture promotion area without obtaining a farmland diversion permit under Article 57(1) of the Farmland Act, and Article 57(2) of the same Act. According to the records, since each farmland of the 00-0-0 and 000-00 of the Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Sin-gun, Busan-gun, whose parking lot was diverted by Defendant A1 without obtaining a farmland diversion permit under Article 57(1) of the Farmland Act, is all located outside the agriculture promotion area, the court below erred in the application of Article 57(2) of the Farmland Act to Defendant A1 on the violation of the above farmland, despite the fact that Article 57(1) of the Farmland Act was erroneously applied, the court below is no longer maintained in this respect

B. Determination on the grounds for sentencing

However, the above argument of the defendants is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined. Defendant Al is punished several times on the building in the temple, change of form and quality, surrounding land form and quality, installation of structures, food sale, etc., violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, violation of the Food Sanitation Act, even though suspended execution was imposed, there is considerable possibility of criticism. However, among the crimes of this case, Defendant A1's first and second crimes of this case, Defendant A1's crime of this case; B's crime of this case is likely to be judged simultaneously with the violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones and the violation of the Building Act, which became final upon the sentence of 3 years of suspended execution; Defendant Al is likely to violate the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones and the violation of the Act on Special Measures, which became final upon the sentence of 2 years from the Busan District Court's branch of the Dong branch of the District Court; Defendant A's new punishment of this case and its structure, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is rendered again as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence recognized by this court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Articles 57(2) and (3), 34(1) of the Farmland Act (the points of diversion of farmland and the concurrent punishment of imprisonment and fines) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (wholly amended by Act No. 8975, Mar. 21, 2008); Articles 30 subparag. 1 and 11(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of installation of an unauthorized stone tower and a resting room and construction of a resting room), Articles 31 subparag. 1 and 12 of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of changing the quality of land due to the construction of a road; the choice of imprisonment)

B. Article 30 Subparag. 1 and Article 11(1) of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (wholly amended by Act No. 8975 of Mar. 21, 2008), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Unauthorized permission, installation of stone tower and construction of resting room), Articles 31 Subparag. 1 and 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 8975 of Mar. 21, 2008)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of Articles 1 and 2-A of the Judgment against Defendant A1, the crime of subparagraph (b) and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones for which the judgment becomes final,

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11488, Feb. 2

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Presiding Judge, Judge Park Jung-chul

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju