The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. In order to convert a mountainous district, anyone who is the summary of the facts charged has obtained permission from the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, but the Defendant, on June 6, 2013, installed a vinyl house on a size of 186 square meters from among the forest land in the Hamyeong-gun, Mandong

2. Determination of mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act should be based on the actual status of the relevant land regardless of its land category in the public register. Thus, if the land category on the land cadastre becomes a forest and field, even if it is deemed that the land has been lost as a mountainous district and the status of the loss has not been deemed temporary, such land does not constitute a mountainous district prescribed in the Mountainous Districts Management Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do668, Dec. 13, 1988). According to a local business trip report, site location map and satellite photograph, and the results of GPS survey by a public official in charge, land on which a vinyl house as stated in the facts charged in the instant facts charged was installed has been used prior to 2005 as a place where a building was used for exclusive use and even after the removal of the building, and the damage of trees caused by the Defendant’s act was not discovered (Evidence No. 7 of the evidence record).

Ultimately, the land on which a vinyl house was installed as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case does not constitute a mountainous district prescribed in the Mountainous Districts Management Act because the Defendant lost the phenomenon of the mountainous district before installing a vinyl house, and the state of such loss cannot be deemed temporary, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act