특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(산림)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the two years each from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Defendant B obtained permission for gathering earth and stones from the Hongcheon-gun Group E (hereinafter “the instant forest”) on March 13, 2014, and accordingly, Defendant B could lawfully cut and cut 12 part of the instant forest land in the course of collecting earth and stones. As such, the said part of the standing timber 12 ought to be excluded from the number of the standing timber that the Defendants cut and cut out without obtaining permission.
In addition, from among the standing timber cut and excavated in the forest of this case, 95 parts of the forest of this case remains in the local area because they were not taken out, 69 parts of the forest of this case were planted in adjoining roads, and 50 parts of the forest of this case were destroyed and left unattended in the surrounding area. Since all of the above standing trees can be confiscated, it is necessary to impose additional collection on the value of the forest of this case except for this.
The sentence of the court below's unfair sentencing (two years and six years and four years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
(1) In addition, Defendant B merely knew that Defendant A would excavate standing timber on the land of the instant forest with the permission of the competent authority, and argued that there was no fact that Defendant A used the forest to divert standing timber on the land of the instant forest in collusion with Defendant A, building a road, etc. However, such assertion is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since Defendant B first stated in the summary of the oral argument that was made on December 15, 2015 after the deadline for submission of the written grounds for appeal.
In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendants asked K to the early October 2014, the operator of the place where the defendants came to K and asked the defendants whether they can excavate standing timber in the forest of this case. In this case, the court stated that the defendants should be in the remaining number of standing timber in the remaining standard as a result of the investigation of the forest of this case in order to excavate standing timber in the forest of this case. The court confirmed that standing timber falls short of the standard number when investigating the forest of this case in the same month.