When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Any person who intends to temporarily use a mountainous district shall report it to a competent authority.

Nevertheless, on March 2015, the Defendant temporarily used a mountainous district by changing the form and quality of a mountainous district of approximately 24 square meters by using one excavated machine for the purpose of preventing a disaster without reporting it in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-nam, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The basis for calculating the amount of damage from a location map, cadastral land map, current status map, field photograph, and forest;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment to forest registers) prepared by the police, and the forest register appended thereto;

1. Application of a copy of the landslide damage investigation report;

1. Article 55 of the relevant Act on Criminal facts, subparagraph 2 of Article 55 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, Article 15-2 (2) of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act,

2. The defendant and defense counsel provided for in Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The summary of the claim is that the Defendant temporarily uses mountainous districts for the purpose of preventing disasters and is not illegal as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

2. The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. As such, only if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act, it constitutes a justifiable act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1764, Oct. 28, 1986; 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). Accordingly, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant was able to report to the competent authorities sufficiently, and used mountainous districts temporarily for the purpose of preventing disasters without reporting as stated in its reasoning. Thus, urgency, which is a requirement for a justifiable act, is the requirement for a justifiable act.