(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.10.24 2018노171 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.10.24 2018노171

산지관리법위반

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In Gunsan-si, D, E, and F forest as indicated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant land”) does not constitute a mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, on the ground that “land located within a fence of a building where bamboo and bamboo are growing” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28088, Jun. 2, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), and it does not constitute a mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act (amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 12 subparag. 2 of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act and Article 13 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B) The instant land is not subject to the Mountainous Districts Management Act because it falls under farmland under the Farmland Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, regardless of its legal category.

C) The Defendant removed and planted pine trees likely to be infected by pine wilt disease in the instant land, which correspond to “afforestation” under Article 2 subparag. 2(a) of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act, and thus does not constitute an act of mountainous district conversion.

In addition, the area of the part on which the defendant removed danger trees, etc. from the land of this case does not exceed 4,000 square meters.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of six months and the fine of ten million won, the suspended sentence of imprisonment of two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the lower court had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on the part of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in the part regarding “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.01.26 2017고단1133

-대전지방법원 2017.01.19 2016노2171

-전주지방법원 2018.08.31 2018노626

-전주지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노1382

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.07.06 2018고정52