However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 15, 2014, the Defendant, who was permanently residing in B on April 10, 2014, was allowed to have a shoulder reduction machine for agricultural and industrial waste in a dry field cultivated by the Defendant.

It constitutes a forest adjoining area located within 100 meters from a forest or forest, and thus, it should not be avoided, and there was a duty of care to thoroughly manage and supervise the fire so that the fire can not spread to a forest.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at a place less than 10 meters away from the forest located in C, laid a fire after cutting off the 10 meters away from the forest located in C, and followed by the negligence of moving a place to put a fire in another place, the Defendant was unable to carry a forest owned by another person with a total size of 186,713 square meters, including C, in a forest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a survey report on actual condition and photographs of areas where forest fires have occurred;

1. Relevant Articles of the Forest Protection Act and Article 53 (4) of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of sentence, and the selection of imprisonment (such as the big size of a forest damaged by the negligence of the accused);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do148, Apr. 1, 2007)