The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) purchase the land of 120 square meters in B, B, 120 square meters (hereinafter “B land”), C, 248 square meters in C, D, 99 square meters in D, E, and 1,095 square meters in total (hereinafter “E land”); and (2) 3,000 square meters in each of the above land on each of the instant land, and 4,000 square meters in each of the instant land, and 3,000 square meters in each of the instant land to be used as farmland. Since the Defendant performed banking work to use each of the instant land as farmland, it does not constitute “the diversion of farmland” under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and it does not constitute “the diversion of farmland” under the Farmland Act, and the Defendant does not constitute “the removal of each of the instant land by the public official in charge of cutting and cutting,” but does not constitute “the removal of each of the instant land under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.”

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. First, the Defendant’s act of raising each of the instant lands is due to changes in the form and quality for cultivation.