자연공원법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. With respect to the facts constituting the crime listed in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of appeal in the decision of the court below, the defendant purchased a new building E on the instant miscellaneous land: Provided, That the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of violating the Natural Parks Act due to the construction of a new building in this part of this case, even though he only repaired a building due to the storm and storm wave in 2010.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the crime under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the punishment is determined within the scope of the term of punishment where concurrent crimes are severe under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the court below erred by omitting the heavy aggravation of concurrent crimes, which led to the failure of the judgment of the court below to maintain.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including the contents of the Defendant’s statement from the investigative agency to the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it can be recognized that the Defendant constructed a new building on the instant miscellaneous land owned by Chungcheongnam-do and designated as a national park zone (Evidence No. 139 of the Record). The instant facts charged is related to the new construction on February 2008, which is irrelevant to the repair portion due to the typhoon difficult wave damage caused by the typhoon in 2010, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendant is without merit, but the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio reversal.