The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the violation of the Farmland Act, since the Defendant’s ownership is the 3,025 square meters of the I paddy-si I (the judgment of the original court is the "Yyang-si C", but the J is divided into four administrative Dongs, such as K in 2007, and thus the indication of the seat is corrected as above; hereinafter “the instant answer”) is only the land outside the agriculture promotion area, but has lost its value as farmland, and is actually converted into miscellaneous land, the Defendant’s installation of a ridge is an act that does not require permission under the Farmland Act.

B. With regard to the violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, approximately 690 square meters of LA forest 63,074 square meters (the original judgment is referred to as “YAD” but the above location is corrected for the above reasons; hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest land”) and MM 39,151 square meters (the original judgment is referred to as “YAE,” but the above location is corrected for the above reasons; hereinafter referred to as “the ditch of this case”) in terms of the violation of the Management of MA and the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which are owned by the Defendant, are naturally occurring geographical features due to the flood that flow from the adjacent mold due to the flood, and the Defendant was using the said land as a parking lot prior to the gravel, and the Defendant was merely an act of spreading the said land to a height of not more than 50 cm in height to prevent soil and sand erosion on the above land, and thus, it is not necessary for the Defendant’s act of conversion or development.

C. In relation to the violation of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, the Defendant installed and filled up facilities such as a temporary stop on the 610 square meters of the instant ditch among the instant ditches in order to maintain the order of visitors and to secure convenience facilities. Therefore, the said act is justifiable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant is permitted to divert farmland.