In the process of creating a passage through mistake of facts, the defendant only cut down standing timber or divers, but did not cut standing timber.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's erroneous determination of facts and the court below's judgment, since the defendant can recognize the fact that he cut standing timber, the court below's findings and judgment are justified.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness of unfair sentencing, has its own territory of the first instance court with respect to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is groundless.