logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.05 2017고정2771
산림자원의조성및관리에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No person who outlines the facts charged may install structures in forests without justifiable grounds;

On July 8, 2016 to 4, 2016, the Defendant resided in C and occupied part of state forests under the jurisdiction of the Korea Forest Service, for other purposes, and installed one ball, which is an illegal structure, without good cause, within state forests under the jurisdiction of the competent authorities in the Korea Forest Service.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the head of this case is set up at a distance close to the private house operated by the defendant, and the defendant is set up at the bar as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the head of this case”).

In relation to this, the fact that the investigative agency made a statement to the effect that “the principal directly installed the instant dynasium,” and accordingly, the head of the Suwon State Forest Management Office issued an order to remove the instant dynasium to the Defendant, and it is recognized that the Defendant made an application for extension of the deadline for removal.

However, the Defendant denied the facts charged in this case at the time of this court, and the facts were installed in a brush, but the Defendant considered that the brush was not installed in the investigation stage, and that the brush was installed.

In full view of the fact that the witness E testified to the effect that he only made a statement, and that he testified to the effect that he was “to install the instant locker at his own expense, and that he should be responsible for the boomer’s responsibility” in this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant installed the instant locker without any reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

3. Conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is ordered to sentence innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow