logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.03.24 2016노2079
야생생물보호및관리에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, did not charge the ball cartridges but did not shoot the gun; (b) went to a mountain to verify whether hunting is possible; (c) but (d) the said place was deemed inappropriate for hunting, and was landed from a mountain to waive hunting and move it to another place.

Although the defendant did not perform any act of hunting as above, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Although the defendant was punished by a fine in the court below in violation of Article 70 subparag. 15 and Article 55 subparag. 1 of the Wild Animal Protection and Management Act (Prohibition of Hunting in the vicinity of the authorization), the defendant does not fall under Article 70 subparag. 16 of the Wild Animal Protection and Management Act (Article 70 subparag. 16 of the Wild Animal Protection and Management Act (Article 70 subparag. 15 of the same Act) for the purpose of catching wild animals in violation of this Act by the defendant

argument is asserted.

In this end, the defense counsel's assertion seems to be in the context of the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not have the purpose of hunting at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, in the trial of the party, the defendant's assertion that he did not violate Article 70 (15) and Article 55 (1) of the Wild Animal Protection and Management Act (Prohibition of Hunting in the vicinity of the authorization) shall be considered to be judged on the ground of appeal.

2. According to Article 70 subparag. 15 and Article 55 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Protection and Management of Wild Animals, hunting in the vicinity of the authorization is prohibited. The legislative purport of the above provision appears to be to prevent risks that may be caused by hunting in the vicinity of the authorization, and hunting is performed based on the easible circumstances, such as the appearance of wild animals and the growth of ball cartridges or firearms.

arrow