logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.08.20 2014노478
산지관리법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the land of this case (Seopo-si B) on the ground of the ground of appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, since it is not mountainous district.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

(a) A person who intends to temporarily use a forest for cultivating ornamental forest plants, such as landscape trees, etc. on the summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall report thereon to the head of Si/Gun/Gu regarding mountainous district of a forest

Nevertheless, on February 2012, the Defendant temporarily used a forest by planting 700 mar trees, green trees, 700 mar trees, 300 mar trees, and 2,000 mar trees, which are landscape trees, for the purpose of growing landscape trees, without reporting to the competent authorities in the forest owned by the Defendant, located in Seocho-si B (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the land as a mountainous district under Article 2 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act and there is no other evidence to regard it as a mountainous district, since it is difficult to recognize it as a land where standing timber is collectively cultivated or standing timber is collectively cultivated is temporarily lost, even if it is deemed that there was a partial timber, etc.

3. The key issue of the instant case was whether, at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the instant land around 2009, the “actual phenomenon” of the said land was a tree, or not the mountainous district (a state in which standing timber, etc. are collectively brought up or collectively brought up is temporarily lost).

The land in this case is up to 6,381 square meters, and evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as field photographs (p7-12), etc. may be deemed as having existed in part of the above land. However, even though standing timber, etc. is collectively growing or standing timber, etc. is temporarily lost, the land in this case is de facto as a mountainous district.

arrow