The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not create farmland within 13,289 square meters of forests and fields D in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and there is no farmland in the said land.

Since F forest land is a concrete road established as a Saemaul project in the 1970s, it is not a conversion of a mountainous district even if it was created as farmland.

E Forest land is used as farmland for about 100 years prior to the use of approximately 680 square meters as farmland, so even if the defendant stored a stable in the above land and returned it, it is not a conversion of a mountainous district.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “the creation of 60 square meters of farmland was made by means of cutting down the work that was installed in the existing place without obtaining permission for conversion of mountainous district and piling up stone festivals.”

B. According to Article 2 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, “ Mountainous Districts” refers to using mountainous districts for purposes other than afforestation, etc., or changing the form and quality of mountainous districts for such purposes, including forest roads (forest roads) and working roads that are excluded from roads.

C. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, ① each aerial photography (Evidence No. 24-31 of the evidence records)’s images, etc., it is clear that the forest of this case was changed to farmland at the latest around March 201, at the latest around May 201; ② the above work changed to farmland appears to be a lawsuit abutting on the road, ② even if the Defendant’s statement was based on the Defendant’s statement, it was used as a mountain path, such as a farm road, village access road, etc., under the Mountainous Districts Management Act. Thus, the above work is a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act; ③ the Defendant was shoting the mountain path of each of the forest of this case, such as the existing work in each of the forest of this case from around March 2011 to around 2012, and was shoting part of it, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant diverted the mountainous district as recorded in the facts charged.

On the other hand, the defendant was originally.