산지관리법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Article 27(2) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act regulates cases where earth and stones are collected from the beginning for purposes other than mining, but the Defendant, after collecting earth and stones for the purpose of mining and preventing them from disposing of them as minerals, does not constitute a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, since it does not constitute a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act.
In addition, the Namwon-si B and C (hereinafter "the mine of this case") is a mine containing most minerals, and the defendant collects earth and stone incidental to the process of collecting minerals, so it is not necessary to permit a separate earth and stone gathering.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.
2. The assertion that the mining right holder obtained approval of the mining plan on the assertion of mistake of facts
Even if a person extracts rocks containing the relevant mineral into fine aggregate, he/she shall obtain separate permission for quarrying under Article 90-2 (1) of the former Forestry Act (amended by Act No. 6391, Jan. 22, 2001) (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do1981, Jul. 23, 199). If a person extracts aggregate incidentally in the course of extracting minerals, he/she shall not obtain permission for extraction of aggregate, but if he/she extracts aggregate without obtaining permission for extraction of minerals (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do588, Dec. 23, 1998). Examining the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s act of collecting aggregate constitutes a violation of the provisions of Article 90-2 (1) of the former Forestry Act from the mine of this case without obtaining permission for extraction of aggregate from the mine of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is correct.