The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles ① The road in this case is a road that does not constitute a mountainous district under the law of the time of act because it was recognized as a military route.

(2) The defendant's acts written in the facts charged do not constitute alteration of form and quality.

③ The Defendant’s act in the facts charged constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms and thus, is dismissed from illegality.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) A person who intends to temporarily use a state forest shall report thereon to the Minister of the Korea Forest Service;

Nevertheless, around May 17, 2017, the Defendant created mountain paths, such as forest roads, using a cuter, etc. from the area of 1,656 square meters in a state forest located in Incheon-gun, Gangwon-do without reporting the temporary use of a mountainous district by the Minister of the Korea Forest Service, and temporarily used a mountainous district equivalent to KRW 8,127,150 for expenses for restoration.

B. The land maintained by the Defendant constitutes “a mountain road” under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act in light of its location and surrounding shape, and thus constitutes “a mountainous district” under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act.

According to the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, the form and quality of mountainous districts are changed to use mountainous districts as mountain paths, and it also constitutes temporary use of mountainous districts.

C. 1) The appellate court’s determination as to whether the instant land constitutes a road under the Road Act is a road in the form of a road, where the instant road is determined and publicly announced as a road zone, or where a road zone is determined and publicly announced under the Road Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act, or only through the procedure prescribed under the Urban Planning Act or the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the mere fact that the instant land is actually used as a road cannot be deemed as a road subject to the Road Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28106, May 26, 201). The Defendant is a road subject to the Road Act, given that the instant land was publicly announced as a route approval for the race group, the instant land constitutes a road under the Road Act, and accordingly, the Management of Mountainous Districts