The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant, with permission for changing the form and quality of a forest, made ditches on the forest land owned by the Defendant to prevent the flow of soil while growing landscape trees with permission for changing the form and quality of the forest, there was no fact that the forest was damaged even if the forest was damaged.

This constitutes an emergency evacuation even if it is an emergency evacuation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, A reported the alteration of the form and quality of a forest for the purpose of ornamental tree cultivation from January 7, 2003 to December 31, 2003 with respect to Yongcheon-si B (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) on January 7, 2003, and the forest of this case where ornamental water was planted in the instant forest, but the ornamental water was cut off in the instant forest, but the Defendant was 570 square meters of the instant forest of this case (hereinafter “the damaged part”) and removed inside and outside the 1m from the instant forest of this case.

Whether the damaged part of this case constitutes a mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the relevant land regardless of the land category in the public record, and even if the damaged part of this case is lost as a mountainous district, if it is possible to restore it to its original state temporarily, it constitutes a mountainous district (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do668, Dec. 13, 1988; 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008). Considering the circumstances where landscape trees and miscellaneous trees are growing on the part damaged to the damaged part of this case, the damaged part of this case constitutes a mountainous district under the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, which is a “land where standing trees or bamboo grow collectively or a land where standing trees or bamboo grow collectively lost temporarily.”

Consolidatedly, whether the Mountainous Districts Management Act has been violated and whether emergency evacuation has been prevented.