The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal had been used as dry field for a period of 20 years before the Defendant purchased the instant forest from March 2016, and the said forest has been used as dry field for at least three consecutive years as of January 21, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant could obtain permission to divert a mountainous district under Article 3 of the Addenda to the Mountainous Districts Management Act (No. 14361, February 2, 2016).

In addition, since the Defendant committed the act of converting the instant mountainous district according to the official’s instruction or recommendation to allow the public official in charge to use the answer and the above forest as an orchard that he/she may continue to use the farming house even without changing the land category even if there is a written confirmation by this Chapter and two residents, there is no intention or illegality.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

On the other hand, the punishment (fine 5 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted the same purport as the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles among the grounds for appeal in the lower court.

Therefore, the court below rejected the judgment based on the detailed circumstances in the item 3. 2. '2. Judgment'.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel.

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

B. The Defendant’s assertion that it is difficult for him to obtain unfair sentencing until the trial of the case does not deny and reflect the instant crime, the area of the mountainous district damaged by the instant crime is larger than approximately 6,000 square meters, and no restitution has been made until now, and the Defendant has already been punished by a fine for the same kind of crime.