The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the defendant newly constructed a building on the farmland in this case, it is possible to restore the building to its original state, and the defendant continued to use the building for the purpose of storing the residence and farming equipment, this continues to be the farmland diversion act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant’s act as an immediate offender.

2. Determination

A. The form of “the diversion of farmland” under Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 7335 of Jan. 14, 2005) can be seen as cases where not only the form and quality of farmland but also the form and quality of farmland is changed in fact by installing tangible objects that obstruct the use of farmland, etc. In addition, there are cases where farmland is used for other purposes, even if it does not entail any changes in external form or it is accompanied by changes in external form and it is difficult to restore to its original state.

If the act of farmland diversion itself, like the former, loses the function of farmland as farmland by itself and uses the land thereafter for purposes other than agricultural production, etc., does not constitute “didition of farmland,” the crime of farmland diversion without permission should be deemed to be an immediate crime established upon the completion of such act and simultaneously completed.

However, if the act of using the pertinent land for purposes other than agricultural production, etc. still can be seen as farmland diversion without permission, as in the latter case, the crime of diversion of farmland without permission is punishable as long as the said land is used for another purpose.