The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant is a preserved mountainous district B (hereinafter “instant mountainous district”).

2) Of the parts used as the past marina, the section 627 meters located in the vicinity of E operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant section”).

It is true that the Defendant conducted flat work on part of Maro. However, the Defendant conducted flat work by embling the part of Maro with soil created by cutting off part of Maro, but all of the instant part, not by cutting and embling as such, but by cross-concing the damaged area and the non-damage area. While the Defendant’s diversion of the actual mountainous area in the instant part is less than 274 meters and its width is less than 2 meters, the lower court calculated the entire damaged area of the instant part including non-damage area as the damaged area based on the largest width among the areas of peace work. 2) The lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly adopted and examined, based on the evidence, found that the part of the instant part of the instant part was damaged due to the movement, etc. of the horse, etc., and then diverted the part of the mountainous area, including the damaged area, and, at the same time, the first part of the part measured by the Defendant from 27m of the instant part of the distance of Gamo to 3m work.

According to the above evidence, including witness I, J's testimony, each field photo, and fact-finding report, etc., the section of this case can be evaluated to have been conducted as a whole by the defendant, not by either the damaged area and the non-damage area but by the defendant. On the other hand, the width of the area which is flat is the same.