The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a mountainous district is a “ mountainous district” under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall be determined according to the actual status of the land in question, regardless of the items in the public register, and such a phenomenon as a mountainous district has been lost;

Even if the lost state is temporary and it is possible to restore the land to its original state, it constitutes a mountainous district (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1979, Nov. 29, 2012, etc.). The lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, temporarily lost the phenomenon as a mountainous district since the trees in the forest of this case were considerably cut by others, and the forest of this case was used as dry field after the tree was cut by others.

Even if the defendant had been in a state that the shape or function as a mountainous district has not been lost at least at least at the time of the implementation of flat work, and that it was possible to restore it as a mountainous district.

Since it is reasonable to view the instant forest as “the mountainous district” as prescribed by the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the mountainous district” under the Mountainous Districts Management

2. The remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the court below.

B. Even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the recognition of intent in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.