The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the forest of this case does not fall under “the mountainous district” under each of the above provisions as an orchard.

In doing so, notwithstanding each of the above provisions, the lower court determined that the forest of this case was “a mountainous district” under the Mountainous Districts Management Act by applying the provisions of the Farmland Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, which are entirely separate provisions, and applied Article 2(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act amended before the date of the original judgment.

B. The Defendant cultivated the instant forest land as a fruit for 15 years after obtaining authorization for a forest management plan under Articles 8 and 11 of the Forestry Act, which is a forest management plan under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, and is deemed to have been permitted to convert mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act.

(c)

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Space Information (hereinafter referred to as the “Spatial Information Act”), the spatial information law, which is a special law, takes precedence over the Management of Mountainous Districts and the Farmland Act, is an orchard in accordance with the spatial information law.

In this regard, Article 2 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act excludes land, the category of which under spatial information law is not an orchard from farmland, so the land in this case is an orchard under the farmland law in accordance with the above provision.

(d)

Even if the mountainous district management law applies to the forest of this case, the defendant's act is not subject to permission to convert to damage the mountainous district or damage it.

2. Determination

A. First, the Defendant’s judgment as to the first argument does not constitute “a mountainous district” under the Mountainous District Management Act even in the lower judgment.

The court below rejected the defendant's argument in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant's argument", and rejected the above argument by stating in detail the defendant's argument and its judgment.

Compared with the above judgment of the court below, it shall be closely examined.