Court: couple had no intention to farm, sought profit from development
Agricultural management plan listed occupation as 'housewife'
Pair also faced internal probe after LH land speculation scandal
A civil servant couple who submitted fraudulent documents to obtain farmland acquisition certificates while purchasing agricultural land near a development project site for about 1.2 billion won ($890,000) have had their convictions confirmed. The Supreme Court found that the pair bought the land with no intention of farming it, seeking instead to profit from rising property values driven by the nearby development.
The Supreme Court's First Division confirmed on Oct. 1 the lower court's ruling against the couple — a man in his 60s, identified only as A, a former civil servant indicted on charges of violating the Farmland Act, and a woman in her 50s, identified as B, a current civil servant. A was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year, while B received a fine of 20 million won. The court said the lower court had neither exceeded the bounds of judicial discretion nor misapplied the law on farmland violations.
According to court records, A and B, who are married, purchased two parcels of farmland totaling about 1,650 square meters in the Guri and Namyangju areas of Gyeonggi Province in June 2018 for 1.15 billion won. Including taxes and other concessions, the total came to about 1.2 billion won. To finance the purchase, the couple took out a loan of 680 million won and added 200 million won raised by reducing the deposit on their existing residence.
In July 2018, despite having no intention of actually farming the land, the couple submitted false documents to Guri City Hall stating that the purpose of acquisition was "agricultural management," that they planned to grow "green onions and mushrooms," and that labor would be provided through "self-labor," thereby obtaining farmland acquisition certificates. B, who was at the time a civil servant at the Gyeonggi Provincial Government, was also found to have falsely listed her occupation as "housewife" on the agricultural management plan.
After allegations of real estate speculation by Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) employees surfaced in 2021, an internal investigation and criminal probe into A revealed signs that the couple had tried to make it appear they were actually farming the land. When A's brother asked him in April of that year for 2.5 million won to cover mushroom installation costs, A transferred the money and sent a message reading: "I've deposited 2.5 million won. I hear the inspector is coming Friday — please take care of anything that might be lacking."
In June of that year, A received a message from his brother saying: "Make it look like you bought 500 mushroom logs on Aug. 16, 2019, and farmed mushrooms through the end of 2020." A was found to have received the contact information for the person who installed the mushroom logs from his brother only on July 15 of that year.
In August 2024, a first-instance court sentenced both A and B to six months in prison, suspended for one year. The court said it was sufficiently established that the defendants had obtained farmland acquisition certificates by fraud, with no intention of cultivating the land themselves. It also cited as a sentencing factor that the defendants, as civil servants, had committed an unlawful act and had yet to show any remorse.
The appeals court in April dismissed A's appeal and upheld the original sentence. However, it overturned B's sentence and reduced it to a fine of 20 million won. Regarding the farming-related materials the couple submitted after the internal investigation, the appeals court said the documents appeared to be nothing more than an attempt to feign agricultural activity in order to avoid punishment or deflect the probe. On B's false listing of her occupation as "housewife," the court said she had done so out of concern that declaring herself a civil servant could make it appear difficult to secure her own labor for farming, potentially complicating or delaying approval.
In explaining the reduced sentence for B, the court said the impetus and motivation for the offense likely originated with or was reinforced by her husband, A, rather than by B herself.
yg@heraldcorp.com
