[산림법위반ㆍ초지법위반][집32(3)형,718;공1984.8.1.(733)1238]
The meaning of "when grassland is diverted without permission in violation of Article 23 of the Grassland Act" as provided in Article 30 of the same Act.
In violation of Article 23 of the Grassland Act, which is subject to a punishment under Article 30 of the same Act, a conversion of grassland without obtaining permission means a conversion of the grassland already created under the Grassland Act for any purpose other than the grassland cultivation without permission from the Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and it cannot be deemed that the grassland continues to be used for any purpose other than the grassland cultivation without obtaining a permission for the development of grassland and without obtaining a permission for the development of grassland.
Articles 23 and 30 of the Grassland Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Busan District Court Decision 83No1691 delivered on February 9, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
According to the main sentence of Article 23(1) of the Grassland Act, if a person intends to divert the grassland created pursuant to this Act for any purpose other than the grassland cultivation, he/she shall obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries after deliberation of the Committee established in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, Article 30 of the Grassland Act is subject to a punishment. Thus, the term "the conversion of the grassland" means the conversion of the grassland already created pursuant to the Grassland for any purpose other than the grassland cultivation without permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries without permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the conversion of the grassland for any purpose other than the grassland cultivation without permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. It cannot be deemed that the land to be developed continues to be included in the subject of punishment under the former part of Article 30 of the Grassland Act even if it continues to be
According to the facts affirmed by the judgment of the court of first instance, and the facts stated in the indictment, the defendant does not divert the grassland already created under the Grassland Act without permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but merely extract 800 glussssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)