산지관리법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On March 2016, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the forest by installing three vinyl houses to cultivate Blue Blus, without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Gu, on the land of the Dong-si, Gyeonggi-do, and approximately 800 square meters of forest land located D (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) converted the use of the mountainous district to cultivate Blus, without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Gu.
2. Determination
(a) Mountainous district means land, etc. for which “standing timber and bamboo collectively grow” or “standing timber and bamboo collectively grow,” and farmland, grassland, road, and other land prescribed by Presidential Decree are excluded [Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Mountainous District Management Act (amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former Mountainous District Management Act”) (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Mountainous District Management Act (amended by Act No. 14361, Jun. 3, 2017; hereinafter “Mountainous District”). Determination of whether a mountainous district is a mountainous district shall be based on the actual phenomenon of the relevant land, regardless of the relevant land category on the public record, and a phenomenon as a mountainous district
Even if the lost situation is temporary and it is possible to restore the original state to the original state, the land constitutes a mountainous district (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008; 88Do668, Dec. 13, 198). (b) In light of the above legal principles, although the land of this case is classified as “outstanding,” the land of this case is classified as “outstanding,” the air carrier submitted by the defense counsel (1997, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016), the land of this case was cultivated as a site or dry field (gy field, etc.) before May 10, 2005, and its situation cannot be deemed temporary.
In addition, according to other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the land of this case is insufficient to be recognized as a mountainous district, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. In conclusion, since this part of the facts charged premised on the fact that the land in this case is a mountainous district falls under the case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered after Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.