The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant embling the farmland into the farmland as soil around July 2009 and continues to use it after converting the farmland into the farmland D and E (hereinafter “instant farmland”); and (b) the Defendant’s diversion of the farmland without permission is continuously subject to the current Farmland Act as a continuous crime; (c) according to the current Farmland Act, the Defendant’s act of raising the farmland constitutes the act of diversion of farmland without permission, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds.

1) The former Farmland Act (amended by Act No. 9721, May 27, 2009; hereinafter “former Farmland Act”) which was applied around July 2009 by the Defendant at the time of raising the farmland of this case.

Article 57(2) of the same Act provides that a person who intends to divert farmland without obtaining permission to divert farmland under Article 34(1) of the same Act shall be punished. Article 34(1) of the same Act provides that a person who intends to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Meanwhile, the main sentence of Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the same Act provides that “the diversion of farmland is to be used for any purpose other than the cultivation of crops or perennial plants” means “the diversion of farmland” means “the diversion of farmland in this case is to be used for any purpose other than the cultivation of crops or perennial plants” and “the diversion of farmland in this case is to be used for any purpose other than the cultivation of crops or perennial plants.” According to the written statement prepared by the G, who is the F of the Ansan-Myeon Eup Office, the diversion of farmland in this case is to be made within a free debate at the time and to establish the coast, etc., and the diversion of farmland in this case was made for farmland improvement (Evidence evidence No. 4), and according to the statement made by the public official in charge of G police.