beta
Text
Defendant
The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the category of land C (hereinafter “C land”) in the Cheong-gun, Cheong-gun, Busan (hereinafter “C land”) shall be classified into “c.” but its substance does not constitute mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, since it is “the answer” and thus does not constitute mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act.
The Defendant, from May 2013 to May 2014, converted a mountainous district into a mountainous district of approximately 4,472 square meters located in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun (hereinafter “K”) without obtaining permission from the competent authority, by misunderstanding the facts of unfair inspection of sentencing and misapprehending the legal principles (not guilty part of violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act).
Since L's statements in investigation agencies supporting this are consistent with the legal statements of the court below in part of Q, P, and R, this part of the facts charged was sufficiently proven.
The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding sentencing is based on the evidence indicated in the judgment, i.e., the following circumstances, i., ① the growth of a pool of land C, etc.,
Even if it appears to be temporary, and it is difficult to regard it as a serious and broad form and form change to the extent that it would be difficult to recover the original state, ② The land is determined as mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, in light of the following: (a) the period from November 201, 2013 to July 2014, the Defendant, who converted the mountainous district, did not grow crops from the land; (b) the period from the J cultivated to 2010; (c) the period from 2008 to 2010 to the c) the cultivation area is equal to approximately KRW 500 among the C land; and (c) the alteration of the current state as above seems to be temporary in light of the period of cultivation, the status of management after the cultivation, and the surrounding environment, etc.
In full view of the evidence and each of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so erroneous as the defendant alleged.