A. Considering the following circumstances, the lower judgment that recognized that the Defendant changed the form and quality of forest E 713 square meters of forest land in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant forest”) without permission is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding facts based on false materials that the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government or Seoul Metropolitan Government created.

1) Regarding cutting, the land cut by the defendant around early 2006 is not the forest of this case, but the forest created by the Dongjak-gu or the Seoul subway Corporation (on the present Seoul Meart) by illegally laying earth and sand at the time of the construction in the part of the Dongjak-gu's motion tunnel, the subway Line 4, and the defendant cutting the part that was illegally filled, and the cutting part is within 50 cm, which is within the permissible range under the law, with respect to the damage to standing timber. 2) With respect to the damage to standing timber, there is no evidence that the defendant damaged the part that was cut in excess of 25 metres from the Enforcement Rule of the former Forestry Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry No. 1529 of Jun. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) until December 5, 2009.

3) In relation to the concrete packing part, since the Defendant, at the request of Dongjak-gu, stored a retaining wall and a stone embankment by the Seoul subway Corporation, was a minimum package in the original state, it cannot be changed to the form and quality of illegal packaging. The packing part is subject to the Road Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning and Utilization Act”). The National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”).

This is not applicable.

B. Since the Defendant, after the head of Dongjak-gu Office issued a restoration order, planted and filled up standing timber in the instant forest and completed restoration to its original state, it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of a restoration order, and even if it falls short of the restoration standard, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant merely did the incomplete implementation and does not constitute a violation

In addition, the failure to implement the restoration measure.