The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that there is no fact that the Defendant received all documents related to the permission from the head of the budget office, such as the permission for felling, etc. However, the Defendant received the permission from F in charge of the budget group by telephone, and only notified C of the fact.

This case is about the fact that another person’s forest land was cut, and it is not about the fact that the defendant did not accurately explain C whether the person is subject to permission to cut timber.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground of the statement of C without credibility, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Judgment

The Defendant, in collusion with C on February 2009, cut approximately KRW 144 of the instant facts charged using mechanical saws, etc., without obtaining permission from the competent authority, on a size of approximately 1,820 square meters of land D 1,820 square meters of land in Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

The burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in the relevant legal doctrine criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(1) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on June 25, 2009, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant conspiredd with C to cut off trees without permission because it is difficult to recognize the credibility of C’s statement, and the lower court guilty the Defendant without any evidence to acknowledge it. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C The credibility of the statement is not the same as that of the defendant completely cut off in the police.