A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of Mineyang-si B and C.

1. Any person who violates the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall obtain permission from the competent market where he/she alters the form and quality of land or collects soil and rocks;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the mining market from March to August 2018, 2018, performed the work of flating work, tin storage work, and opening work in the mining field B and C, and collected soil necessary for flating work in the above two parcels without obtaining permission from the mining development market.

2. Any person who intends to divert a mountainous district in violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act shall obtain permission from the competent market;

Nevertheless, the Defendant collected soil and stones from 665.62m2, E forest, 39.30m2, F forest, and 2,742.16m2 in Mayang-si without obtaining permission from the mining concession market from March to August 2018, and diverted total of 347.08m2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Accusation, location map and photographic site following the detection of illegal development activities;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 140 and Article 56 (1) 2 and 3 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act concerning facts constituting a crime, and subparagraph 1 of Article 53 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and the main sentence of Article 14 (1) of the same Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The fact that the form and quality of the land or the exclusive use mountainous district has been altered without permission for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is considerably large is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, it appears that the defendant recognized all of his criminal acts, and the defendant seems to reflect his attitude, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and is going to restore the original state to the original state, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the sentencing shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, the environment, the motive and background of the crime, the period, the result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.