The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, approximately KRW 1,220 square meters among the Cheongdo-gun, Cheongbuk-do-gun, and E forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”) do not constitute mountainous districts, and the Defendant only maintained access roads that had existed in the instant forest, and did not change the form and quality of the instant forest land.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the Defendant recognized that the Defendant violated the mountainous district management law with respect to the portion of 330 square meters out of D forest land, but denied the remainder). (B) The punishment (2 million won) sentenced by the court below which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The forest land of this case constitutes “land collectively raising bamboo from trees” under Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) and (e) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act and “industrial roads, such as forest roads and work roads,” and falls under mountainous districts.

② The Defendant mobilized the excavated machine and made the instant forest land smooth by means of cutting earth on a large scale, cutting earth, etc., it is reasonable to view it as an act of changing the form and quality of the forest management in excess of the simple maintenance of the forest land.

③ On June 13, 2017, the number of Cheongdo-gun, on the ground that the Defendant diverted the forest of this case, the Defendant filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the above disposition (Tgu District Court 2017Guhap 2334) on September 6, 2017.

However, on July 18, 2018, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's claim, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 3, 2018.

B. Sentencing;