logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2019.01.11 2018고단2072
농지법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to divert farmland shall obtain permission from the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries having jurisdiction over the location of such farmland.

Nevertheless, from September 2017 to July 25, 2018, the Defendant diverted farmland by operating a solid shop where waste vinyl, etc. was sold without permission, on the 2,500 square meters of 3,394 square meters of 2,50 square meters of 2,500 square meters of 2,500 square meters of 3,394 square meters of paddy-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City outside the agricultural promotion area.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Each land cadastre;

1. Location and current status photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 57 (2) and 34 (1) of the Farmland Act that choose a penalty, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Act are as follows: (a) the nature of the crime in this case is not weak in light of the background of the crime in this case, the period of unauthorized diversion, and the size of farmland; (b) the defendant was ordered to restore the original state from the Yan market and did not restore the original state even after considerable time has elapsed; (c) the defendant is recognized as committing the crime in this case; (d) it is difficult to deem the defendant to be contrary to the statement of the investigative agency and this court; (e) on the other hand, around August 2017, the defendant did not have any criminal record other than fines due to the violation of the Building Act; and (e) other

arrow