The case holding that a violation of Article 3 (1) of the Forestry Products Control Act cannot be deemed to be committed in light of Article 1 (Purpose) of the same Act even if forest products are transported without a certificate of carrying out the products.

Since standing timber cut within an area necessary to establish a helicopter for military use upon the instruction of the authorities can not be deemed as a non-illegal forest product, even if the Defendant transported the timber to the residence without the certificate of carrying out the product, it cannot be deemed that Article 3 (1) of the Forestry Products Control Act is applied.

Article 3 of the Forestry Products Control Act, Article 7 of the Forestry Products Control Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 71No1777 delivered on November 5, 1971

We reverse the original judgment.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s appeal is examined as grounds for appeal.

In full view of the statements of the defendant in the first instance trial and the statements of the non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 in the first instance trial, 1969 police officers. According to the direction of the authority, the non-indicted 2 et al. were mobilized with 100 village residents in the second instance under the direction of the authority and the defendant's ownership (name and location omitted) and the forest trees were cut in order to install a helicopter for military use in the original Dong area (name and location omitted) forest land under the direction of the authority, the defendant Eul above the defendant Eul's possession of the forest and transported active trees to the defendant's residence as well as the fact-finding of the defendant's indictment. As explained in Article 1, the Forestry Products Control Act aims to prevent damage to the forest and illegal forest products from being carried out of the forest products with the aim of removing them out of the forest products or carrying them out of the forest products under the direction of the authority to carry them out of the forest products, and it is not possible to confirm the lawful use of the forest products or carry them out of the forest products in question.

Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed on the grounds that the judgment of the first instance is not reasonable, but the result of the judgment that acquitted the defendant is reasonable, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)