The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant gave advice to the wife E on the administrative work for legal construction work, and does not include any act of causing damage or causing damage to the mountainous district.

F The time when the instant mountainous district was damaged by F without permission is from August 6, 2013 to August 16, 2013, and the Defendant did not visit the instant construction site during that period.

The defendant only assisted the submission of explanatory materials, etc. to approve the restoration design for the mountainous district where F had already been damaged.

The statements of F, before the change, N, andO, which the court below considered as evidence of guilt, contain or are not consistent with the intent to gather the defendant, and thus there is no credibility.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

(a) A person who intends to divert a mountainous district, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case, shall obtain permission from the Administrator of the National Forest Service, etc. according to the classification of the types, areas, etc. of the mountainous district

In collusion with E and F, from July 2013 to August 2013, 2013, the Defendant converted the use of heavy equipment, such as excavation equipment, into mountainous districts, and converted the use of mountainous districts, with a total of 5,794 square meters of 6 lots of land, such as G, H, I, J, K, K, L, etc.

B. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant mountainous district was damaged between July 2013 and August 2013 due to the Defendant’s instruction or involvement, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

(c)

1) The following facts are recognized in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the original court and the first instance court.

A) E obtained permission from the competent authorities around 2010 for construction of the instant telecom.

E is the “BIT retaining wall for the future side and side structure” behind the original Moel building of this case.