The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the ground of appeal is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant has already lost the phenomenon as farmland before leasing the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2,767 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on the sole basis of the statement of “the return of qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland” in the preparation of the Seocho-gu Office for Acquisition of Farmland (hereinafter “the instant land”).

2. Determination:

A. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the instant land was used from October 7, 1980 as the site for automobile heavy equipment and technology private teaching institutes, from September 17, 1985 as the site for automobile driving school, from around September 2004 as the site for the recycling collection and disposal site, and concrete was removed on that ground. The Defendant leased 330 square meters, a part of which was around 2007, and was performing creative and management work. The instant land was no longer constituted “farmland” before the Defendant’s lease, and even if the Defendant loaded container stuff on that ground, it cannot be deemed as farmland diversion.

B. In addition to the legal principles and the grounds for the judgment of the court below properly stated, the "return of the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland" of the prosecutor's assertion is just in the measures that the Seocho-gu Office, the complainant of this case, rejected the application for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the land of this case and prepared documents around November 2010, and issued a non-prosecution disposition on suspicion of violating the Farmland Act for D, E, and F, each lessee of the land of this case, on September 2012. In light of the above, the court below's decision that found the land of this case not to fall under "farmland" and acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is reasonable.