The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The land on which the Defendant installed a low temperature coolant (hereinafter “instant land”) does not constitute a mountainous district, and the Defendant thought that the instant land was actually owned, and thus did not recognize the illegality thereof.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 400,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a mountainous district is prescribed in the Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall be determined according to the actual phenomenon of the relevant land regardless of the land category entered in the public register, and if the lost state as a mountainous district is temporary and it is possible to restore the lost state to its original state, such land constitutes a mountainous district.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10118 Decided July 10, 2008). However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

1) According to the satellite photographs taken before 2007 where the Defendant installed a low temperature coolant, standing timber appears to have been growing on the instant land. However, at the time of the Defendant’s installation of a low temperature coolant, it appears that the instant land constituted “land where standing timber is collectively growing.” 2) Although the present standing timber is not growing on the instant land due to the low temperature coolant installed by the Defendant, in light of the fact that standing timber is growing around the instant land since before the Defendant installed a low temperature coolant, it is likely that collective growth of standing timber, etc. can be easily implemented when removing low temperature coolant, in view of the fact that standing timber is growing around the instant land.

3 The Defendant was well aware that the instant land was not owned by himself but owned by the military.

B. The defendant's decision on the argument of unfair sentencing is aged.