A. A surveying surveying by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles based on the drawings before the permission for collection of earth and rocks was granted, and the person who actually led the work was not the defendant but the former manager was dispatched.

The Defendant, while his business experience in collecting earth and rocks was transferred, has trusted the survey result of the said G and H, and did not intentionally collect earth and rocks outside the permitted area.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court determined that there was an incomplete intention on the part of the Defendant on the fact that the Defendant collected earth and rocks at least in a place beyond the permitted area for the collection of earth and rocks in light of the period of the instant crime, the area and

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the facts charged in this case are found guilty, and the above judgment of the court below is just.

Although the Defendant additionally submitted a confirmation document prepared by G in the trial, the said confirmation document only revealed the fact that G was conducting a boundary survey on the permitted area, but does not contain any statement that G was conducting a wrong survey on the area where the instant crime was committed as a permitted area, and thus, it is insufficient to support the Defendant’s assertion. On the other hand, there is no other evidence that “the Defendant has trusted G through H, and did not have any intention to violate the Management of Mountainous Districts Act” as the ground for the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no further fact that it was a new confirmation.

Ultimately, the defendant is the defendant.