The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are that punishing a defendant on the basis of operational guidelines is against the principle of criminal justice. However, the above argument did not constitute an act violating Article 56 (1) 2 of the National Land Planning Act.

Since it is reasonable to see that the argument to the effect that “ is included,” it is also determined whether the court below erred in the facts.

The “Operational Guidelines for Permission for Development Activities”, which is a direction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter “Operational Guidelines”) prescribed that “In the event of banking or cutting of not less than 2 meters of land, it shall include farmland creation activities subject to permission” without any delegation from the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Therefore, it is against the principle of criminal justice that the defendant's act is punished on the basis of the operating guidelines beyond the limit of delegation legislation.

A person who intends to change the form and quality of the summary of the facts charged shall obtain permission from the head of the competent local government, but the defendant, without obtaining permission from the head of the Seosan City, from October 2015 to March 2016, changed the form and quality of the land by cutting approximately 2181.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of the land in Seosan-si, Seosan-si (hereinafter “the instant land”) into the form and quality of the land as farmland creation.

The judgment of the court below also held that the defendant's act constitutes "the alteration of the form and quality of land for farming" under Article 56 (1) 2 of the National Land Planning Act, and thus, it is not unlawful without permission for development activities.

The lower court asserted that “the alteration of the form and quality of land for farming” in Section 4 Section 1-4-1 (2) of the Operational Guidelines is subject to permission.

“.....”