If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. Any person who violates the Management of Mountainous Districts shall obtain permission from the head of a forest office, etc. to divert a mountainous district, specifying purposes thereof;

Nevertheless, on August 2016, the Defendant, at the permanent residence of Haman, used a 179 square meter in mountainous district without obtaining permission to divert a mountainous district (the amount equivalent to KRW 1,719,860) in a mountainous district, and cut, filled, cut, cut, or cut land, and converted the land into a housing site and converted the land into a mountainous district.

2. No person who violates the Act on Property of the State shall use or benefit from State property without complying with procedures and methods prescribed by Acts;

Nevertheless, the defendant from April 2017 to the same year.

9. Until April 1, 200, an administrative property was used by installing and using a portable toilet with a 1.44m2 square meters in the above mountainous district, an administrative property, in the permanent residence C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the documents confirming the boundaries of national parks, such as a survey report on actual conditions, a location map and actual survey map, a photographer of actual condition, a report on calculating damage to standing trees, a ledger and certified copy of a forest register, and an annual satellite photograph of illegally damaged forests, the current status of illegally damaged forest land, photographs, small toilets and photographs, and documents confirming the boundaries of national parks;

1. Article 53 Subparag. 1, Article 14(1) of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016); Articles 82, and 7(1) of the State Property Act (amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 201); and selection of fines, respectively, for the crime

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The fact that the defendant had the same criminal records as the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant is recognizing and opposing his mistake.

It seems that the area of the damaged mountainous district is not wide, but the restoration work is completed after the crime.

There are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime.

(b) it;