산지관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case due to misconception of facts, although the forest subject to this case constituted a mountainous district under Article 2(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act at the time and time indicated in the facts charged, and even if Defendant A sufficiently recognized the fact that the forest subject to this case was engaged in mountainous district conversion as stated in the facts charged, it was found
2. Determination
(a) Summary of the facts charged 1) A A Any person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the head of the forest office, etc. for a specified purpose.
Nevertheless, the defendant from March 22, 2015 to March 23 of the same month and the same year.
4. From November to December of the same month, without obtaining permission from the competent authority over a total of four days, the Defendant converted the use of mountainous districts by installing access roads by digging out bamboo at the place and cutting down sprinks in order to cultivate crops from D forest land and E forest land owned by the Defendant as an auditor (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) and approximately KRW 1,526 square meters among D forest land and E forest land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant forest land”).
2) Defendant B, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), committed the act of violating the Act as described in paragraph (1) above by a person who is an employee of the Defendant.
B. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) on March 13, 1981, the name of Defendant F, a dynamics of Defendant A, with respect to the forest land D 7,772 square meters (hereinafter “forest land before the division of this case”), the ownership was transferred on March 13, 1981; and (ii) on January 6, 201, the registration of the transfer of ownership was cancelled on January 6, 201 in accordance with the judgment of the Jeonju District Court’s Eup Branch 2001Gadan9, the registration of the transfer of ownership was made pursuant to the above application of Defendant A, and on the same day, the registration of the transfer of ownership by inheritance to Nonparty 6 and the transfer of ownership to Defendant A was made on the same day.