beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a corporation that runs a construction business in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Defendant A is a director in charge of B Co., Ltd.
(a) Where a person who collects earth and sand exceeding 1,000 cubic meters in mountainous districts of a forest that is not a state-owned forest intends to alter permitted matters and collect earth and sand, he/she shall obtain permission for change from the competent authority;
Nevertheless, from May 3, 2013 to April 30, 2017, the “J” of the facts charged in Gwangju City E, F, and G appears to be a clerical error.
After obtaining permission to collect earth and stones from May 2013 to October 2016 with respect to the area of 37,720 square meters in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, F, G earth and stone collection exemption area and 8,578 square meters in Buffer-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and I forest and 1,702 square meters in size and 11,526 square meters in size and 11,526 square meters in size.
2) A person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission from the head of the relevant forest office, etc. in accordance with the classification of the type, area, etc. of the mountainous district.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from May 2013 to October 2016, 2016, damaged mountainous districts by arbitrarily collecting soil and sand equivalent to 11,526 cubic meters in 10,280 square meters from Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and I forest land, and 1,702 square meters adjacent to the permission site, and diverted mountainous districts equivalent to 10,280 square meters in total.
B. The director A, who is an employee of the defendant B, committed a violation regarding the business of the defendant corporation as above at the date, time, and place mentioned in the above paragraph A.
2. Determination
A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to have a correct doubt beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if there is no such proof, the conviction of the defendant cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do348, Apr. 2, 201).