Defendant

Prosecutor

Airway;

Attorneys Doh Young-ray (National Ship)

Changwon District Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 847 Decided February 20, 2008

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In light of the purpose and purport of the Natural Parks Act to preserve the natural ecosystem and natural landscape and to minimize the impact on the natural ecosystem, the facts charged in this case where the Defendant, without permission by the park management authority, installed a steel pipe and wire-scept and raised chests, shall be deemed to constitute “the act of raising livestock” as permitted under Article 23(1)8 of the Natural Parks Act; however, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by interpreting only in advance only the act of raising livestock without raising livestock to us, and by interpreting it in advance, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 23(1)8 of the Natural Parks Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: "A person who intends to catch livestock other than a park project in a park area without obtaining permission from the park management agency, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the defendant installed a steel pipe and raised 11 Dus from 7 mar to 7 mar on a site of 686m2 in a park area, which is a natural environment district of Dogsan National Park, in the king-do, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, which is the natural environment district of Dogsan National Park, and from the date not later than July 13, 2007."

In light of the provisions of Article 18, Article 23, Article 18, and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the Natural Parks Act, the court below held that, in principle, the Natural Parks Act permits primary industrial activities, such as agriculture and livestock industry, in the natural environment district, but the act of raising livestock inside the park without raising livestock in Korea is likely to seriously damage the natural park, so the act is subject to permission by the park management agency, and that the act of raising five or less livestock for one household in the natural village district or densely-populated village district can be seen as making it possible without any report as minor matters. Thus, the court below determined that the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of raising livestock in this case since the act of raising livestock by installing a pipe and steel net even according to the facts charged itself constitutes a crime of raising livestock and thus, it does not constitute a crime of raising livestock.

B. The judgment of this Court

Article 23 (1) 8 of the Natural Parks Act provides that “the act of raising livestock by raising livestock without raising livestock at a certain place” shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below: ① The act of raising livestock by the defendant is the form of a steel pipe, steel tower, slick, and slick; ② The act of raising livestock by raising livestock is deemed relatively narrow with a size of 686m2; ② the size and structure of the steel pipe, steel slick and slick with the outer roof, relationship with the surrounding natural environment, whether the environment inside our or fence can be seen as part of the natural ecosystem; ④ The act of raising livestock within the natural ecosystem is not sufficient to recognize it as a part of the act of raising livestock within the natural ecosystem, ③ the act of newly constructing and supplying livestock within the natural ecosystem, and there is no evidence that the prosecutor submitted within the natural park.

Therefore, since the facts charged against the defendant constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Span-ray (Presiding Judge)