logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.11.21 2018노9
환경범죄등의단속및가중처벌에관한법률위반등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and fine of 3,000,000 won, and Defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to 2017 Gohap 5) Defendant A merely engaged in the act of preserving and maintaining access roads to the farm roads established in the past, and there is room for facilitating the restoration of the original state to the original state. Thus, it does not constitute an act of changing the form and quality of land.

Even if Defendant A’s act constitutes an act of changing the form and quality of land, the act is deemed to have obtained permission from the Park Management Agency for changing the form and quality of land pursuant to Article 71(2) of the Natural Park Act, since Defendant A’s act is deemed to have obtained permission to create grassland pursuant to the Grassland Act, as long as Defendant A’s representative obtained permission to create grassland pursuant to the Grassland Act. Therefore, it is unnecessary to obtain permission from the Park Management Agency separately.

B) There is no objective evidence as to the fact that Defendant A’s existing area for maintaining and repairing access roads to a farm road and the area for changing the form and quality of land is more than 300 square meters and not more than 2,200 square meters in total.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a fine of KRW 3,00,000 for Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor and a fine of KRW 3,000 for imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) A person who has already obtained permission to create grassland for land within a natural park zone before being designated as a natural park zone as a misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the portion of innocence as stated in the judgment of the court below) does not need to obtain separate permission for cutting trees, but a person who has obtained permission to create grassland after the designation of a natural park zone intends to fell trees, the person must obtain separate permission

Therefore, since the Defendants obtained permission to create grassland after the designation of a natural park zone, they should obtain separate permission for felling standing timber.

Nevertheless, there is no need for the Defendants to obtain permission to cut standing timber again.

arrow