All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In addition, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants appear on the first trial date and the Defendants are sentenced to a fine respectively. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is asserted after the period for submitting the grounds for appeal has expired.

However, even upon ex officio examination, Article 61 of the Farmland Act provides that "where a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits an offence under any of Articles 57 through 60 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such offence." Defendant A, an employee of the foundation B, committed an offence under Article 57 (2) of the Farmland Act, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and it does not appear that Defendant B, a foundation, was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision in order to prevent a violation under Article 57 (2) of the Farmland Act, and thus, it does not constitute double punishment.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion in this part is without merit.

The punishment of the court below (the defendants: the fines of KRW 2,00,000 for each of them) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the past, the defendants recognized the crime of this case since they came to the trial, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine against the defendant A.

However, even though the defendant A had been punished for the same crime, he/she again commits the crime of this case and up to the trial.