A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The Defendant’s forest area damaged is merely 22,00-23,000 square meters. As the elements of the charge against the Defendant, the evidence proving that “the forest damaged area is not less than 50,000 square meters” is the only element of the “written calculation of the quantity of forest damaged land” prepared by N, and in light of the method, process, contents, etc. of the preparation, it is insufficient to recognize that the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is not less than 50,000 square meters of forest area damaged by the Defendant; however, the lower court erred by the Defendant in damaging a forest of not less than 50,000 square meters.

Recognizing the defendant, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it was decided as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

2) Although the Defendant did not have damaged the entire forest damaged area in the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court rejected each legal statement of the lower court in Q and Z, which is reliable, and found the Defendant guilty of all the charges by taking the testimony of the lower court in the lower court as evidence, which is not reliable, B, I and H, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

3) In the court below, the prosecutor applied for evidence, and the defendant's defense counsel withdrawn consent to some evidence, such as a statement of calculating the number of forest damaged trees, investigation report, etc. The prosecutor ordered the prosecutor of the changed court of the court below to file a new request for the above part of the evidence which was withdrawn before. When the prosecutor again applied for the above part of evidence, the presiding judge of the court below secured it before the examination of evidence was completed, and granted admissibility of evidence to the person who prepared the evidence or the original statement by directly confirming the admissibility of the evidence.