The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) ① The Defendant, an agricultural person, may establish a mushroom cultivation shed (the instant vinyl house) on farmland, and the storage of salt spawn in the said greenhouse does not constitute farmland diversion (hereinafter “the allegation No. 1”). ② Determination on February 2, 199, the public prosecution of the instant case contravenes the principle of the non-fluent interest (hereinafter “the second assertion”).

A. As to the allegation 1, the farmland diversion stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Farmland Act refers to any act that uses farmland for purposes other than farming crops or growing perennial plants, such as changing the form and quality of farmland, installing tangible objects that may obstruct the use of farmland, etc., and the temporary use of farmland for other purposes is limited to cases where permission for temporary use is obtained from the competent authorities, such as the Mayor, etc. on the condition that farmland is restored to farmland after being used for a specific period for the purpose stipulated in Article 36 of the Farmland Act and restored to farmland after being used for the said purpose. In light of the foregoing, even if farmland is used for any purpose other than temporary or marina crops cultivation or perennial plants without permission, it shall be deemed that it constitutes an unauthorized diversion of farmland, unless

2) According to the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 7 and subparag. 1(b) of the Farmland Act, and Article 2 subparag. 2(3)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant, who is an agricultural business, established a vinyl farming house in the form of a vinyl house cannot be deemed to be the diversion of farmland under Articles 57(2) and 34(1) of the Farmland Act, which are the pertinent legal provisions of the instant case.

However, even if the establishment of a mushroom growing shed in this case is lawful, insofar as it is installed with approximately 300 spokes for salt that may temporarily obstruct the use of part of the land as farmland, it cannot be deemed as not diversion of farmland.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the second argument, the Defendant.