208 Fixed 629 Violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

Defendant

Housing Kimpo-si (hereinafter referred to as "residential Kimpo-si")

Reference domicile Kimpo-si (hereinafter omitted)

nan

Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

October 23, 2008

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,00,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Facts of crime

In applying for land transaction permission with respect to 1,818 meters prior to the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu (hereinafter omitted), a land transaction permission zone, at the Incheon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, on December 11, 2006, the Defendant is a certified tax accountant. Despite the absence of an intention to engage in agriculture, when applying for land transaction permission, the Defendant was granted land transaction permission by submitting a false agricultural management plan as if he would actually engage in agriculture with his own labor using the above land and obtained land transaction permission from the head of the Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement by ○○○○ of a witness;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A report on investigation (Attachment to an application for permission of land trade, etc.);

1. An investigation report (on-site confirmation report);

1. Investigation report (the current status of Defendant’s land holdings);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 141 Subparag. 6 and Article 118(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1. The assertion;

The Defendant asserted that farmland recorded in the facts constituting an offense (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”) was purchased for the purpose of realizing agriculture, and that the Defendant actually purchased farmland after the purchase, and thus, it cannot be recognized as the facts charged.

2. Relevant provisions;

Article 118 (Permission for Land Transaction Contract)

(1) Parties who intend to enter into a contract (including a reservation; hereinafter referred to as "land transaction contract") on the transfer or creation (limited to the transfer or creation in return for a consideration) of the ownership or superficies (including the right aiming at acquiring the ownership or superficies) with respect to land located within an area subject to permission shall jointly obtain permission from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. The same shall also apply to any modification to permitted matters.

Article 119 (Standards for Permission) The head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall not grant permission where an application for permission under Article 118 falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where the objective of land utilization by any person intending to enter into a land transaction contract does not fall under any of the following:

(c) Where it is necessary for farmers, fishermen, or persons prescribed by Presidential Decree who reside within a permitted area to engage in agriculture, livestock, forestry, or fishery within the relevant permitted area. Article 141 (Penalty Provisions)

A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won (in cases of a person falling under subparagraph 6, an amount equivalent to 30/100 of the relevant land price based on the officially assessed individual land price as at the

6. Person who has entered into a land transaction contract without obtaining permission or a modified permission provided for in Article 118 (1), or obtained permission for a land transaction contract by falsity and other illegal means.

3. Determination

A. The head of the competent Gu may grant permission for land transaction to a farmer who resides in the land transaction permission area where it is necessary to engage in the agricultural business within the pertinent permission area (see Article 119 subparagraph 1 (c) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act). In light of the fact that Article 121(1) of the Constitution declares the principle of land ownership before the freedom of agriculture (see Article 119 subparagraph 1 (c) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act), and strictly limits the ownership of farmland by non-farmers, it is reasonable to interpret that a farmer is engaged in the agricultural business as his main business, or that even if a farmer does not engage in the agricultural business, it means a case where a farmer intends to cultivate and sell agricultural crops and to generate profits, thereby

B. As to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., the Defendant served as a certified tax accountant from April 199, i.e., the Defendant had been working as a certified tax accountant from around April 199, operated an office at the time of the acquisition of the instant farmland, operated nine employees, and 2,102 meters in Incheon, Seo-gu (hereinafter omitted) around January 20, 2003, and acquired 2,102 meters in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant.

10.4. In light of all circumstances such as the Defendant’s occupation and experience, Defendant’s farmland possession status, and the farmland cultivation status, etc. of the farmland in this case, prior to the acquisition of the farmland in this case, the Defendant had already been in possession of a considerable size of farmland, and thus, the need to additionally purchase the farmland in this case appears to have been low. (3) Although the Defendant offered a large amount of 4.3 million won and purchased the farmland in this case, the Defendant neglected to manage the farmland in this case while growing the farmland in this case, which lacks economic feasibility, such as bean, walth, salth, salmat, salmat, and giving and receiving. The yield was low, and the agricultural products harvested were supplied free of charge to the Defendant’s family members, such as the Defendant’s occupation and experience, Defendant’s farmland possession status, and the farmland cultivation status of the farmland in this case, etc., it seems difficult to deem that the Defendant had an intention of profits for the purpose of purchasing the farmland in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Judges

1) After acquiring the farmland of this case, the Defendant additionally acquired 4,122 meters prior to the Kimpo-si (hereinafter omitted) on October 5, 2007.