Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the C Religious Association, who owns forests and fields in B at the female city.

1. The Defendant violated the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, without obtaining permission from the competent administrative agency on March 2013, and cutting the above forest by using a digging hole, etc., and diverting the mountainous district.

2. Anyone who has violated the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act shall obtain permission from the competent authority for felling standing timber, etc. in a forest;

On April 5, 2012, the Defendant cut a total of 33 glue trees, such as 19glue trees and 14glue trees, which were growing in the said forest without obtaining permission from the competent authority for felling trees for the management of the cemetery of the said clan, on April 5, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Receipt of civil petitions for new counseling;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the results of surveys;

1. Article 53 Subparag. 1 of the relevant Act and Articles 14(1) (unauthorized mountainous district) of the Management of the Mountainous Districts subject to the option of punishment concerning criminal facts, Articles 74(1)3 and 36(1) (unauthorized felling of standing timber) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, and selection of fines, respectively;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of managing the graves of a clan representative, and the Defendant did not seem to have committed the said act for economic purposes. The Defendant, who failed to properly understand the answer of relevant public officials, determined as above by taking into account the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, health status, and circumstances after the crime, etc.