산지관리법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in the month of imprisonment with prison labor, two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant did not have the same power for the Defendant; the Defendant does not directly manage forests and fields exclusively used for illegal mountainous districts; rather, the Defendant asserts that the land was reclaimed for farming purposes according to the proposal of Defendant B, and economic circumstances are difficult.
It is reasonable to consider the sentencing of the defendant.
However, for the sake of preserving the environment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, it is necessary to strictly punish illegal mountainous districts; the area exclusively used for mountainous districts is not smaller than 3,766 square meters; and the defendant has been about 10 years ago in the forest of this case;
However, according to the documents submitted by the prosecutor, the people living in the vicinity of the above forest have made a statement contrary to the above argument, and the materials submitted by the co-defendant B of the court below do not seem to sufficiently support the defendant's argument, and considering all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the first trial exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.
It does not appear.
B. The lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable, unless there is any data newly discovered in the trial.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.