The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, flaged with soil in a preserved mountainous district or quasi-protected mountainous district without reporting for temporary use, was flaged due to flag, etc. However, as the time of the instant case, when a large amount of soil was leaked, the act of the Defendant constitutes an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act, and thus, it does not constitute illegality.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 7, 2020, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and withdrawn the above assertion on February 7, 2020.

The court below found the defendant to have violated the Management of Mountainous Districts Act by comprehensively taking into account the evidence, such as the police statement of C, the actual situation survey report, the location map of damaged area, the investigation report (the classification of unlawful exclusive use area), one copy of the basis for calculation of the damaged area, on-site photographs, photographs, etc.

Even if it was necessary for the defendant to take measures for the restoration of flood damage, such measures shall be limited to the minimum extent necessary to the extent of urgency.

Examining all the circumstances, such as the amount of rainfalls from August 30, 2018 to September 4, 2018, which were revealed by the evidence and records as seen earlier, and the damage situation at the time, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not take temporary measures within the land for which permission for mountainous district conversion was granted, in consideration of the status of rainfalls, and that there was a need to take measures for restoration even when damaging the mountainous district of 650 square meters in total without obtaining permission for mountainous district conversion without filing a report for temporary use.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes an emergency necessity as a reasonable and reasonable means to avoid the present danger.

or otherwise.