Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to divert a mountainous district, other than a preserved mountainous district, shall obtain permission from the head of the relevant forest agency, etc. in accordance with the classification of the type, area, etc. of the mountainous district according to

Nevertheless, from September 2013 to October 2013, Defendant A and Defendant B conspired with each other to package concrete packages in order to facilitate vehicle traffic without obtaining permission to convert into part of D and one parcel of land (a quasi-converted mountainous district).

As a result, Defendant A and Defendant B conspired to convert quasi-preserved mountainous districts without obtaining permission to convert mountainous districts.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to internal investigation reports (former aerial photography analysis);

1. Article 53 Subparag. 1 and Article 14(1) of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act (Amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016); the choice of fines for criminal facts; and the choice of fines for negligence

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of each of the Criminal Procedure Act in the provisional payment order

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendants entered into a subcontract with G and carried out the original construction work, and did not instruct G to pack the passage passage on the ground of the Southern Do and H land (hereinafter “existing passage”) with concrete.

B. The existing passage roads have been actually used as roads prior to the packing of concrete, and thus, they cannot be deemed as mountainous districts, and thus, they do not constitute a crime of violating the Management of Mountainous Districts Act.

2. Determination

A. The above

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court regarding the assertion, namely, ① the Defendants, as an officer or employee of I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) at the time of the instant case, were newly constructed as original livestock penss by the instant company.