[2] The case holding that the above stone constitutes "natural stone," which is a conservation resource under the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City and the Ordinance on the Management of the Natural Environment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, in case where it was intended to remove three remaining stones after processing stone collected from tin in Jeju Special Self-

[2] The case holding that the above stone constitutes "natural stone," which is a conservation resource under the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City and the Ordinance on the Management of the Natural Environment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, in case where it was intended to remove three remaining stones after processing stone collected from tin in Jeju Special Self-Govern

A. Defendant 1

(1) Legal principles as to the concept of natural stone

The three points of the decision of the Defendants attempted to take out the rocks that the Defendant collected with lawful permission for gathering were processed as a stone for construction, and the remaining rocks were not natural rocks under Article 3 subparag. 5 of the "Ordinance on the Natural Environment Management of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province" enacted based on Article 296 of the "Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City". Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of natural rocks, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

(2) The lack of criminal intent

In light of the fact that it is difficult for relevant public officials to make accurate decisions to the extent that there are differences in opinions with regard to whether the instant stone 3 point is natural stone, and that the Defendant was believed not to be preserved resources, as it is crushed by cryp aggregate, etc., the Defendant did not have any intent to commit the instant crime.

(b) Swords;

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant 1: the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 1 million; Defendant 2: the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 400,00,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion, such as misapprehension of the legal doctrine

(1) Legal principles as to the concept of natural stone

Article 358 (4) of the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Development of Free International City (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the act of trading resources without obtaining permission under Article 296 (5) of the Act or removing such resources out of Jeju Self-Governing Province shall be punished. Meanwhile, Article 296 (1) of the Act provides that the Governor may designate the resources prescribed by Provincial Ordinance among the rare animals and plants living in Jeju Self-Governing Province and the natural resources buried therein (hereinafter referred to as "Preservation resources"), if deemed necessary for the protection of the resources of Jeju Self-Governing Province, the Governor shall designate the resources to be preserved (hereinafter referred to as "Preservation resources"), and Article 35 (5) of the Act provides that the person who intends to sell or purchase the preserved resources within Jeju Self-Governing Province or take them out of Jeju Self-Governing Province shall obtain permission from the Governor, and Article 3 (5) of the Ordinance on the Natural Environment Management (Article 256 of the Ordinance on the Establishment of April 5, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of this case").

In the instant case, the health zone, 3 points of the instant stone that the Defendant intended to take out, cut only one side from the original stone taken from the stone production company for construction purposes. Considering the fact that the Defendant, who operates the building stone production company, did not completely process except the external cutting part, and remains naturally, and that the 70cm or 150cm in length of the longer straight line of the 3 point of the instant stone, etc., even though the 3 point of the instant stone was cut from the original stone, it is reasonable to deem that the 3 point of the instant stone maintains the form and value of the natural stone externally even if it was cut from the original stone, and the 10cc or more in length falls under the natural stone, which is the conservation resources stipulated by the Act and the instant ordinances (it cannot be deemed that the designation of the preservation resources was cancelled because the Defendant collected 3 points of the instant stone from the lawful permission for gathering them).

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

(2) The lack of criminal intent

In light of the following circumstances indicated in the record, the Defendant attempted to go beyond 3 points in the instant case upon the Nonindicted Party’s request by the Nonindicted Party directly, and attempted to go beyond 3 points in the instant case to the Dong in the process of removal, and the fact that 3 points in the instant stones were outside the form and value of natural stone in appearance, etc., the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent to commit the instant crime. Accordingly, the Defendant’s counterclaim to the contrary purport is without merit.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing

It is necessary to severely punish the act of unauthorized removal of natural stone, which is a conservation resource with regional characteristics of Jeju Self-Governing Province. However, in light of the following factors: three points of the instant case were lawfully collected and processed for stone; the Defendants recognized objective facts; the Defendants did not have any criminal record; the Defendants appeared to have no criminal record; and other factors to be considered in light of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, character, character and conduct, and environment, the sentence of the lower court is too unjustifiable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since both the appeal by Defendant 1 and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants are without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “○○○” in two pages of the judgment below as “Defendant 1”, and “Article 360” in the 17th sentence as “Article 360(1)” shall be corrected as “Article 360(1).”

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)