Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On February 12, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and 240 hours of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of false accusation, etc. in this court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2019.

【Criminal Facts】

Any person who intends to convert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, etc. according to the classification of mountainous district types, areas, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, on March 2016, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, converted the use of mountainous districts into mountainous districts, such as removing dump trees, gysp trees, and dump dump dump dump dump dump dump, which were born using pokes equipment in order to conduct a boundary restoration survey. The Defendant converted the use of mountainous districts into mountainous districts without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, by removing dump trees, gump trees, and dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A letter of business trip;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Mountainous district information inquiry in the Korea Forest Service;

1. Records before judgment: The defendant's legal statement, criminal records, etc. inquiry, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes significantly to this court;

1. Article 53 Subparag. 1 and Article 14(1) of the Act on the Management of Mountainous Districts, which is amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016; and was enforced on June 3, 2017. The instant crime was committed, as the statutory penalty of the former Act is smaller than that of the former Act, since the former Act’s previous act or the former Act’s statutory penalty is smaller than that of the former Act, under Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 53 Subparag. 1 and Article

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The argument in this case, such as the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is completed, the damaged area is not significant, there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime, the fact that it is contrary to the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, circumstances and result of the crime, etc.