logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.11 2017노5783
산림자원의조성및관리에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine-misunderstanding of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (hereinafter “The Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act”) aims to protect the property rights of products cultivated or managed, and thus, bringing the produce that is not managed in the forest is not punishable.

In addition, the Defendant’s gathering of mushroom was included in a bank and did not go back to the bank, and thus, it did not lead to the theft.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the penalty amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that self-produced products are not subject to theft, the purpose of the Forest Resources Act is to contribute to the conservation of national land, the development of the national economy, and the improvement of the quality of life of the people by allowing them to function various functions of forests through the development and management of forest resources and promoting the sustainable preservation and use of forests (Article 1 of the Forest Resources Act). It is not limited to the creation and management of forest resources artificially cultivated and managed, under Article 73(1) of the Forest Resources Act, which is the relevant legal framework for criminal facts, the term “the act of cutting the produce from forests” is punished. This provision does not include any provision that is limited to artificially cultivated and managed products. The term “forest” is deemed to be “the standing timber, bamboo and its land collectively growing” (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Forest Resources Act), and it is reasonable to view that the term “forest” and the land collectively growing regardless of whether natural or artificial land is natural or artificial.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the assertion that larceny is an attempted larceny, larceny infringes another person’s possession and moves property to one’s own possession, i.e., under his/her factual control.

arrow