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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On May 1, 2012, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from administrative authorities, opened a road for access to agricultural machinery in a size of 2.7m and 50m in length from forest land owned by E located in forest land managed by C, and diverted the use of forest land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 53 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and Articles 53 subparagraph 1 and 14 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of 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 they did not know that the act was an offense as stated in its holding, as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of a misunderstanding that one's own act is not a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason to believe that the misunderstanding is not a simple legal site, but a general crime is a crime, but a misunderstanding is not an act permitted by the Acts and subordinate statutes in his special circumstances, and such misunderstanding is not punishable if there is a justifiable reason to believe that it does not constitute a crime.

Therefore, the defendant did not know that he was a crime against the act as stated in its reasoning.

Even if this falls under a simple site of law, and it is not a case that actively misleads that it does not constitute a crime as permitted by law, and it cannot be said that there is a justifiable reason, and it cannot be said that it is an act due to a mistake of law. Thus, the above argument is rejected.