Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From 2010 to 2011, the Defendant illegally cut 107 Daoak and Dooak trees (rein 7.7635 cubic meters) without permission of the competent authority, from 2010 to 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness D;

1. Field photographs of illegal timbering land;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation site of illegal timbering areas, protocol of the registration of illegal timbering areas, and statement of calculation of damage from forest products;

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 36 (1) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act relating to facts constituting an offense and selective punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the provisional payment order constituted an act of social legitimacy, since trees were used as land owned by the defendant due to typhoons, and there was a situation where the defendant was damaged, and since there was a dangerous situation, only the trees killed or used were cut off, and this constitutes an act of social legitimacy.

Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not contravene the social norms, and the illegality is excluded, should be determined on an individual basis by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) the urgency of the act; and (v) the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5077 delivered on December 26, 2002, etc.). We examine the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court. In other words, even if there are some factors to consider the motive or circumstance leading up to the deforestation of the instant case, the Defendant runs across a broad area of 570 square meters.