1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

3. The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the instant land was used as an orchard and does not fall under mountainous districts, the farmland law should be applied, and the application of the mountainous district law is unreasonable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the defendant's facts charged against the defendant at the time of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the court below. Since this court permitted this, the judgment below cannot be maintained any more.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, we will review below.

B. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, following the summary of the evidence, following the Defendant’s argument in detail.

The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

The following circumstances, namely, whether a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act is a mountainous district should be determined according to the actual phenomenon of the relevant land regardless of the items in the public register, and the fact that the mountainous district has lost its phenomenon as a mountainous district.

Even if the lost state is temporary and it is possible to restore the land to its original state, it shall be deemed a mountainous district (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1979, Nov. 29, 2012, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the land in this case is the change of the form and quality to the extent that it is impossible to restore to its original state, and the phenomenon as a mountainous district is complete.