문화재보호법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including F's statement after purchasing approximately KRW 250 glue trees from the Defendant, the gist of the reasons for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, had F take away approximately 42 glue trees planted in the Do forest and E forest and forest (hereinafter collectively referred to as "two parcels of this case").
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there was no proof of crime.
2. Determination
(a) A person who intends to alter the current state of national cultural heritage designated by the State (including its protective facilities and protection zone, and dead natural monuments), such as planting or removing the summary and trees of the facts charged, shall obtain permission therefor from the Commissioner of the Cultural Heritage Administration;
On November 2015, the Defendant: (a) sold approximately 250gs of pine trees planted by the Defendant to F, a landscaper, in the surrounding area, including the instant parcel 2, which is a historic and cultural environment protection zone of the State-designated culture, around the end of November, 2015; (b) agreed that the Defendant would obtain various permission to extract pine trees; and (c) decided that F would take measures to extract pine trees upon the Defendant’s consent, such as performing dump work for pine trees with the consent of the Defendant.
However, the Defendant did not obtain permission from the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, and had F gather 42 g of trees for landscaping as planted in the above forest from April 21, 2017 to April 25 of the same month.
As a result, the defendant removed trees in the protection zone of the national cultural heritage designated by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Office without permission, and changed the phenomenon.
B. The lower court, in detail, states the grounds for its determination in detail, stated only H, I, J, and K land in the column for “the location of trees” of the transaction agreement prepared by the Defendant to F at the time of selling pine trees to F, as the Defendant owns, and the parcel of this case 2 is subject to that.