The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. On December 7, 2016, the Defendant obtained an approval for business start-up business with the aim of newly constructing a processed agricultural product factory on one parcel, other than B B,895 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yangju-si, pursuant to the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act from the Yangju market, pursuant to the Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act.

However, the act of deeming the permission to divert farmland on the instant land by the above approval is not terminated at the time the construction of the factory site is completed, but it should be evaluated that the act is completed at the time the new construction is completed in accordance with the business plan plan. Thus, the nature of the instant land should be deemed to be maintained until the completion of the new construction of the factory.

Therefore, since the Defendant’s act of piling up a concrete collection and alteration product after completing the construction of the factory site on the instant land can be deemed as an act of diversion without permission under the condition of maintaining the nature of the farmland as farmland, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and acquitted the Defendant on this part of the charges.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor: (a) maintained the facts charged that the court below acquitted the Defendant as the primary facts charged; and (b) applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment with the content that the Defendant used the instant land for any purpose other than the purpose of diversion of farmland by putting the instant land in the form of a concrete collection product on the instant land; and (c) the subject of the judgment was changed by the court

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

In the lower court, I will first examine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts added in the trial.

3. Judgment of the prosecutor on the misconception of facts as to the primary facts charged

A. A person who intends to divert farmland to the primary charge.