Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is developing the tourist farm.

A person 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.

Around August 2009, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, diverted farmland by opening roads with a length of 203 meters and a width of 1.3 meters in a way that is owned by C and C, a farmland outside the agricultural promotion area, can be said to be graveld by sckes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C (including C of the statement of the police suspect examination protocol against the defendant);

1. Complaints, reports on each investigation, and application of each individually assessed individual land price statute;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 57 (2) and 34 (1) of the Farmland Act that choose a sentence, the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that since the farmland of this case was originally set up a farm road from the original date, and the act of opening or managing a farm road on the farmland does not constitute the act of farmland diversion necessary for permission, the defendant's act merely maintaining the gravel on the existing farm roads cannot be punished as a violation of the Farmland Act.

On the other hand, even if the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the defendant entered the construction vehicle for the creation of government-managed farm resources, or entered the road packing for the convenience of the tourist farm users, such act cannot be evaluated as an act of building farm roads on farmland for which permission is not required, and it is reasonable to view that such act constitutes an act of diversion of farmland used for purposes other than agricultural production or improvement of farmland. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.