The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant did not intend to violate the Mountainous Districts Management Act because the land involved in the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act was a state-owned forest, and the Defendant took measures to prevent an unexplosible accident by rhyming a part of the sloping surface in order to prevent the falling-out of the sloping surface at the time of the storm, etc. so the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below finding guilty of violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

2) The Defendant violated the River Act due to the purpose of occupation and use of land and the change in the area of the area, not the place where a container was installed, but the Defendant was aware that farmland was used. Therefore, there was no intention on the change in the purpose of occupation and use of

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of violating the River Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) The Defendant violating the River Act, following the change of the course of flowing the river, only maintained and repaired the river with permission, and did not keep flowing water of the river or change the direction thereof. Even if it comes to a legitimate act to prevent human life damage, the Defendant ought to be acquitted.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, the Defendant was found to have committed a violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and even if the Defendant had a purpose to prevent the falling of the deceased.

Even if the defendant's act of converting mountainous districts without obtaining permission from the competent authorities does not meet the requirements of urgency and supplement.