The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the forest land and R forest land located in the Northanan-gun located in the North Korean territory prior to mistake of facts (hereinafter “each of the instant land”), the actual status of the forest land located in the North Korean territory is not a mountainous district, and thus, a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act is not established, and an order to reinstate is also inappropriate, and thus,

Even if the actual status is mountainous district, there is no evidence that the defendant's area that changed the form and quality is 2,120 square meters.

B. In light of the legal principles, each of the instant lands is the forest in the production management area and the Defendant’s act of changing the form and quality of each of the instant lands was for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Mountainous Districts Management Act only applies to the Defendant’s above act, and there is no room to apply the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

Therefore, even if the defendant did not comply with the above order to reinstate, he cannot be punished as a violation of Article 142 of the above Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant alleged that the lower court’s determination of mistake was not a mountainous district, as in this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion.” In so doing, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not lose the phenomenon of forest land of approximately 2,120 square meters in total among the two parcels of the forest and the R forest and the forest and the forest and the forest and the forest and the forest of approximately 2,120 square meters in total, among the two parcels of the changes in the form and quality and form, in comparison with the aforementioned judgment of the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.