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

A person who intends to convert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the Administrator of the Korea Forest Service, etc. according to classification of mountainous districts specified by Presidential Decree, size, etc.

Nevertheless, from September 2018 to October 2018, the Defendant: (a) performed the work to cut off and embling the above forests and fields on a scale of 3,000 square meters of the above forests and fields without obtaining permission from the competent authority; and (b) performed the work to organize and flat access roads.

As a result, the Defendant, without obtaining permission for conversion of mountainous districts, converted mountainous districts to mountainous districts other than preserved mountainous districts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The actual survey report, location map, satellite photographs, field photographs, forest land register and forestry map;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the act of converting a mountainous district is a justifiable act to prevent flood damage, as recorded in the investigation report. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant’s act is not deemed a justifiable act since it does not seem that there is an imminent damage due to water pollution or flood damage; the Defendant does not seem to have any special circumstance not permit the diversion of a mountainous district; and the Defendant also claims to the effect that it constitutes an exception to Article 10 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, in principle, stipulates cases where the conversion of a mountainous district is exceptionally permitted in a preserved mountainous district in which conversion is restricted, and Article 10 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act does not stipulate exceptions that are not granted permission for the diversion of a mountainous district in an area other than a preserved mountainous district; and the mountainous district of this case is a quasi- conserved mountainous district and is not a preserved mountainous district, and thus, it

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.