logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.04 2014노2690
산림자원의조성및관리에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of livering a punishment in a forest owned by the Defendant, the Defendant merely cut down miscellaneous trees, such as hump trees born in the forest area of this case adjacent thereto, in the form of livering.

B. In light of the legal principles, the point of time when the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles as to the completion of statute of limitations, cut down the instant teach tree, etc. is around 2005, and the statute of limitations for the instant facts charged has expired

The boundary of the forest area of this case, which is adjacent to the mountain (N, and five parcels) owned by the Defendant, is unclear. The Defendant was aware that felling standing timber in the forest owned by the Defendant would not be subject to the permission of the management office. As such, there was no awareness of illegality regarding the crime of this case.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the number of trees cut by the defendant is not more than 50 parts of pine trees, 249 parts of pine trees, and 180 parts of other active trees, and the number (the total height from the support division to the drilling) is more than 7m-14m in case of pine trees, 7m-16m in case of pine trees, 7m-16m in case of pine trees, and 7m-17m in case of other active trees created around the surrounding area, and the defendant used them as pro rata trees, and the remaining fire reduction in case of pine trees, etc. as alleged by the court below. In full view of the following circumstances, even if the defendant intended to cut part of pine trees, the act of the defendant in this case appears to be for personal interests of the defendant, and the act of the defendant in this case appears to be for the formation and management of forest resources Act.

§ 36.1.

arrow