The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, the land B (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the entry of the facts charged in the instant case is covered by gravel, etc. from the time the Defendant purchased in around 1999 to the point of the purchase, and thus, the status of farmland was lost. Therefore, it does not constitute farmland under the Farmland Act.

Even if the instant land was classified as farmland at the time of purchase, the instant land is no longer deemed farmland under the Farmland Act because it was completely lost the phenomenon of farmland as farmland and it does not fall under farmland under the farmland law, since it is not subject to permission to convert farmland.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, with the detailed statement of the judgment on the above argument under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing of a sentence on the grounds of statutory penalty is a discretionary determination made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and in addition, in the event that there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it in a case where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. The first instance sentencing is within the reasonable scope of discretion.