beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that cutting the ground of this case does not require permission as a form and quality alteration of land to cultivate crops, promote the soil power of farmland, and improve productivity in the farmland on which the creation of the ground for appeal was completed, but the court below convicted the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Article 56(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 51 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that where the form of land is changed by means of changing the form and quality of land, i.e., cutting, filling-up, leveling, paving, etc. or reclaiming public waters, permission from the competent authorities shall be obtained. However, exceptions are given to “the change of the form
In this context, “the alteration of the form and quality of land for farming” shall be interpreted as “the alteration of the form and quality of land for farming” in cases where the form and quality of farmland is changed in order to enhance the productivity of farmland, such as the cultivation of crops in the farmland for which creation has been completed or the simple suspension of soil or small scale
Therefore, even if the land owner, etc. has changed the form and quality from the intent to cultivate the land, if it is up to the extent of changing or damaging the fundamental function of the land, it is necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8410 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.). B.
In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged various circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a change in the form and quality of farmland in order to enhance the productivity of farmland, such as a simple guest soil or a small-scale stop work for the purpose of improving the productivity of farmland that has already been completed, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a change in the form and quality of farmland.