logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.06.27 2017노1827
야생생물보호및관리에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal [the facts charged in the judgment of the court below and the facts charged alternatively added at the trial of the court below] The defendant discovered a rush and emitted shot gun in the vicinity C of the Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, but its location is not within 100 meters from the above road.

Therefore, the above act of the defendant does not constitute a violation of the Protection and Management of Wild Fauna and Flora Act.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor applied for a change in indictment with the contents of selective addition of the facts charged, such as the annexed sheet, in the trial of the party, and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the part of the facts charged alternatively added is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and this is examined ( insofar as this court recognizes the Defendant guilty of the facts charged alternatively added at the trial of this court, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the part of the facts charged in the judgment below is not separately determined as follows). (B) Taking full account of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the part of the facts charged alternatively added, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant has hunted at a place within 10 meters from the road, and such act constitutes a violation of the Act on the Protection and Management of Wild Animals

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The requirement for establishing the instant criminal facts is that “the person has hunted in a place within 100 meters from the road pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Road Act”.

The defendant set the vehicle to Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, in the trial of the party.

arrow