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

1. A person who intends to divert a mountainous district in violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts shall determine its use and obtain permission from the head of the relevant forest office, etc. in accordance with the classification of the types, areas, etc.

Without permission from the competent authority, from November 201 to February 2, 2017, the Defendant diverted a mountainous district by means of cutting off a path to enable vehicles to move, cutting standing trees, etc. from the area of 4,332 square meters of forest land in the Namyang-si, other than C, Nam-si, Namyang-si, to the area of 5 square meters of forest land.

2. He/she shall not fell standing trees or bamboo, collect soil and rocks, tree roots or grass roots, rear cattle, or do any other act that damages or alters erosion control facilities or the form and quality of land in an erosion control area in violation of erosion control business Act without obtaining permission;

Without permission from the competent authority, from November 201, 2016 to February 2, 2017, the Defendant changed the form and quality of land and cut standing timber on a road through which vehicles can move to another by using a digging machine from the area of 832m2 square meters outside D, Nam-si, Namyang-si and one parcel.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. A written accusation;

1. Investigation report (the currency of the public official in charge);

1. Investigation reports on illegal acts, degree of destruction and loss, old map, register of land (at least seven areas), entire certificate of registered matters, plans for utilization of the national territory, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the site of photograph;

1. Article 53 subparagraph 1 of the Management of the Mountainous Districts Act, Article 14 (1) (unauthorized mountainous districts) of the same Act, Articles 27 and 14 (1) of the Erosion Control Business Act (a violation of restrictions on activities in an erosion control area) concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was a relatively large size of the mountainous district converted without permission, the Defendant need to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the defendant confessions each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment for the last 15 years or more.