개발제한구역의지정및관리에관한특별조치법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In order to eliminate miscellaneous trees that were born by the Defendant by mistake of the fact in the Seocho-si, Gwangju Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant forest”) on a 480 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter “the instant forest”), there is a fact that the Defendant carried out miscellaneous trees without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.
After that, the residents living in the vicinity of the forest of this case who were public officials in charge of the competent authorities due to the flooding of land, etc.
G asked the Defendant to install a fume-type fume, and if the Defendant refused to do so, the G would allow the Defendant to use a naturally formed road due to the installation of fume-type fume-type fume-type fume.
In the end, the construction cost was KRW 10 million.
The court below found the Defendant guilty despite the fact that the construction of the road under Article 2 of the facts charged in the instant case was not caused by the Defendant’s act.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
In the first sentence of the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor did not comply with the corrective order issued by the prosecutor to reinstate the unlawful act on August 21, 2015 and twice around September 22, 2015, while opening and using a road without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency, in a manner of covering the gravel on the 660m3 in the forest and field near the access road in Gwangju-si, which is a development restriction zone from around 2012, in the second sentence of the facts charged in this case.
“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed,” and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
Although there are such reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts still remains within the scope of the modified facts charged.