beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) of the crime of the case No. 2010, 103, 2010, 167, as indicated in the judgment of the court below (as to the violation of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act with respect to the Namcheon-gunF), was extracted from around September 2009 to the original state without completion of the act of extraction, and thus, Defendant’s act of extraction of the said pine trees did not reach the number of trees, and was amended by Act No. 9763, Jun. 9, 2009.
F. The Forest Resources Act (hereinafter referred to as “Forest Resources Act”).
() Since there is no provision on punishment for attempted crimes under Article 74, this part of the facts charged is deemed not guilty because it does not constitute the elements of a crime, and the defendant was found not guilty. Although the permission for extraction of pine trees was revoked by the competent authority for the above FF pine and did not know that it was unauthorized, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the defendant was aware of the fact that he was an unauthorized act (hereinafter referred to as "the Chapter
(2) (2) The act of opening an access road for cutting standing trees, etc. under the part of Article 2 of the criminal facts of the case No. 2010, 103, 2010, 167 of the judgment of the court below (as to the violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act as to Gohap-gun G), is the act of opening an access road for cutting standing trees.
It is subject to reporting under Article 15 (1).
However, when the Defendant obtained permission to excavate pine trees from Gyeongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and obtained such permission, the Defendant should be deemed to have filed a report on the establishment of access roads necessary for felling standing trees.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.