산지관리법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act due to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, according to the direction of the public official in charge at the time of April 2012, 201, filled up a slope with soil from the process of piling up a stone wall as a countermeasure to prevent disasters, and there was no perception of illegality. 2) The Defendant, around 2014, stored a retaining wall as a measure to recover the mountainous district in accordance with the direction of the competent permitting authority, and opened the retaining wall at the bottom of the retaining wall to prevent flood from spreading due to flood, constitutes an emergency evacuation.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court, ex officio, applied Article 53 Subparag. 1 and Article 14(1) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act with respect to the instant criminal facts paragraph (1).
However, Article 14(1) of the current Mountainous Districts Management Act was amended by Act No. 11690 on March 23, 2013 and enforced on March 23, 2013. Thus, the current Mountainous Districts Management Act cannot be applied to criminal facts committed by a defendant prior to the implementation of the current Mountainous Districts Management Act, and Articles 53 subparag. 1 and 14(1) of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Act No. 11352, Feb. 22, 2012) should be applied.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below on this part cannot be maintained.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.
B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant made the same assertion in the court below, and the court below explained the grounds in detail, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law of mistake
(1) Evidence No. 2 submitted by the defendant, witness J testimony, and police statement of E shall be written.