A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles ① An investigation report prepared by a special judicial police officer G, without a warrant, ordering the suspension of felling or the prohibition of felling trees in the instant forest land without obtaining a warrant, and collecting evidentiary materials, the level of value of illegal forest damage, illegal forest damage warning photographs, illegal forest damage warning photographs, the current status of the damaged area, the calculation details of damage amount, and the investigation report (the evidence list Nos. 1 to 4, and 18) (the evidence list No. 1 to 4, and the investigation report) (the evidence list Nos. 1 to 18) are inadmissible as evidence in violation of due process, the principle of due process, the evidence of violation of warrant requirement, and it is not admissible as evidence against the Defendant, who is the secondary evidence obtained based on such evidence. The police and the prosecutor examination protocol against the Defendant, the police statements by E, E, F, and G respective court statements by the lower court, and investigation reports (the evidence list No. 17) are inadmissible.

In addition, since the court below testified to the effect that the above people denies each of the above statements in the investigative agency of I and H as the grounds for conviction, it is also inadmissible.

Ultimately, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, except the above evidence, cannot be found guilty of the facts charged in this case.

② The Defendant’s act of cutting standing timber equivalent to 60 cubic meters of the instant forest land is lawful, following Article 36(5) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, Article 43 subparag. 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 47(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, that a forest owner is entitled to cut standing timber not exceeding 10 cubic meters per annum for agricultural use even without permission and reporting. The act of cutting standing timber exceeding the amount equivalent to 60 cubic meters is deemed to have been arbitrarily cut under the Defendant’s direction, and thus, the Defendant’s intention cannot be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.