When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Any person who intends to convert a mountainous district shall obtain permission for conversion of a mountainous district for a specified purpose.

Nevertheless, around January 2014, the Defendant cut a mountainous district of approximately 1,432 square meters using an excavated machine for the purpose of creating access roads without obtaining permission and diverted mountainous district without obtaining permission for mountainous district conversion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. The descriptions and images of the actual survey report and the attached status thereof, on-site photographs, the incumbent investigation camping place, the field survey camping place, the standard standing timber value, and the standards for calculating the prices of standing timber;

1. Descriptions in an investigation report, an on-site investigation site attached thereto, camping site, camping site, field photographs, and the application of video Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 53 subparagraph 1 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and the main sentence of Article 14 (1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and selection of fines for criminal facts;

2. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse.

3. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the part of the attached Form No. 125 square meters in size in the annexed Form constitutes a justifiable act, because it is merely an area of a road that had been originally installed for passage with a 863 square meters in Seosan-si.

However, the Defendant was unable to obtain permission for mountainous district conversion, and there was no urgent reason to do so, and the Defendant cut the roads without obtaining permission for mountainous district conversion, and such act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, among the annexed drawings, the area of 242 square meters in the annexed drawings cut down 16 pine trees, there was no act of converting a mountainous district, etc., which constitutes a justifiable act for the purpose of preventing a disaster.

However, a public prosecutor is prosecuted on the ground that he/she cut the area of 1,307 square meters and the total area of 1,432 square meters among the attached drawings.