The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant notified the victim that the establishment of the right to collateral security would be registered at the time of concluding a sales contract with the victim on the forest land in Ycheon-si D (hereinafter “the forest of this case”). After completing the development activities of the forest of this case, the Defendant agreed with the victim to transfer the ownership of the divided forest to the victim by dividing the forest after the completion of the development activities of the forest of this case and agreed to transfer the ownership of the divided forest to the victim, which could not be divided into the victim’s discretion, and thus, the ownership of the divided forest of this case was not transferred to the victim. Thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, nor

B. Legal principles (as to the violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act), the Defendant’s act of damaging mountainous districts after obtaining permission to divert mountainous districts, and thus, cannot be deemed to have diverted mountainous districts without permission.

In addition, as long as the defendant has obtained permission for development activities from Macheon-si and deposited alternative forest resources creation cost, restoration cost under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and obtained permission for development activities under the National Land Planning Act, the defendant is not subject to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act

(c)

The punishment (one year and four months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

In full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was aware that he had no intention or ability to sell the forest of this case to the victim by

The court below's duly admitted and investigated evidence can be further recognized based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below.