The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not only ensuring the distance required under the current law from the time of the instant charges, but also securing the distance required under the current law from the time of the instant charges, the crops of another person’s land at the time did not take any public measures against the other person after the harvest was completed. Since the total range of circumstances used by the Defendant is 70 meters, the Defendant’s act of hunting at a place less than 100 meters away from the approval at the time

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground of the evidence indicated in its holding.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court below and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance: ① At the time of the facts charged in this case, the defendant was engaged in hunting at a distance from which the defendant asserted that he would have been in compliance with hhhshot shots; ② the defendant was also aware that he was in the vicinity of the land where he could have been hunted (22 pages) at the time, ③ he was aware that he was in the vicinity of the land where he could have been involved (3) 200 meters from the village at the time of the defendant's own statement; ④ subparagraphs 1 and 6 of Article 55 of the Wildlife Protection and Management Act prohibit hunting within the hunting ground, and subparagraph 4 of the same Article prohibit hunting at the place where the market price, near the hunting ground, other people frequent or gather, or a place where he had crops, or prohibited hunting at the place of a road within a distance of 60 meters from the road.