logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2016.01.18 2015고단969
산지관리법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a member of the clan C in charge.

A person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the competent authority to determine the purpose thereof.

Nevertheless, on March 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) buried a grave in the area of 16,264 square meters of D forest in the area of 16,264 square meters in the area of North Korea, North Korea, North Korea; (b) buried a grave in the area by using a tombstone and a seal, without obtaining permission, and buried a grave in the area; (c) excavated the area; and (d) damaged the area of 82 square meters in the area of the said forest and converted the use of a mountainous district.

2. According to the records, it is recognized that the Defendant reported the reburial of a grave in order to change the second body of the grave and then buried the grave in the vicinity of the grave. ① The Defendant appears not to have damaged the mountainous district in the vicinity of the grave (the witness E who examined the instant case’s testimony). However, according to the witness E’s testimony, the Defendant determined that the coloring part of the surface of the earth around the relevant grave was entirely damaged by 82m3 square meters in a yellow-litered part. However, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to have damaged the surrounding land only by spreading off the earth that dealt with the wing part of the wing part in light of the wing part, and it does not seem to have damaged the surrounding land. ② According to the Funeral Act, the installation of a family cemetery, etc. is deemed to have been permitted by the mountainous district conversion permission under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, while the establishment of a private cemetery is merely the matters to be reported (Articles 8 and 14 of the Funeral Services Act).

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow