Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of corporation B, the defendant corporation B is the owner of Kimpo-si C and D.

1. No land use act which is not directly related to agricultural production or farmland improvement in the agricultural promotion zone of Defendant A;

On April 29, 2016, the Defendant purchased two general steel structure factory factories within an agricultural promotion zone in which two buildings are constructed, which was approved as an agricultural product processing and disposal facility, and used the said land as a warehouse for storing household appliances, such as finished products of a stock company B which are not directly related to agricultural production or farmland improvement, from the said date and time to the said date.

2. Defendant B, who did not fulfill his duty of care with respect to his business, caused Defendant A to engage in the same conduct as the above 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to Defendant A’s legal statement to each of the administrative guidance land cadastre (agricultural promotion zone), business registration certificate, sales contract (land and building sales contract, etc.) as a result of the violation of the Farmland Act against Defendant A’s protocol of interrogation of the police suspect, Kimpo market, and E’s statement (Submission of a real estate sales contract, etc., real estate seller

1. Article 58 Subparag. 2 and Article 32(1) of the Farmland Act (the violation of the restriction on conduct in the specific use area) regarding criminal facts and the Defendant A’s choice of punishment: In light of the fact that the Defendant committed a crime for a long time from around 2016 to the date, and that the area of the land used by the Defendant beyond the designated use as the agricultural promotion area is considerably larger than 950 square meters in total, it is not good that the crime is committed.

However, the defendant asserts that all of the crimes of this case were led to confessions and reflects in depth, and that "the defendant purchased the land and buildings of this case for the use as a warehouse, and did not know that the land use within the Agricultural Promotion Area was restricted," and there is no evidence to reject such assertion.