The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s violation of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act is not a violation of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act, since he/she launched a gun against harmful wild fauna and flora.

(2) The Defendant violated the Control of Firearms, Knives, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, but did not constitute a violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, since it did not cause any risk therefrom.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the violation of the Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora Act (A) Article 19(1) of the former Wildlife Protection and Management Act (amended by Act No. 12521, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that “no one shall capture any of the wild animals specified by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, among those which do not constitute endangered wildlife, any person shall capture any of the wild animals that does not fall under endangered wildlife, and the attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that any knives shall be prohibited from capture.

On the other hand, Article 19 (3) 5 and Article 23 (1) of the same Act provide that harmful wild animals may be captured only when permission from the head of Si/Gun/Gu is obtained.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, at around 17:30 on February 1, 2015, was found to have launched an air gun once, without obtaining a permit for capture in front of the 378 am in the ancient city of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and returned to a close place without obtaining a permit for capture. In so doing, the Defendant is deemed to have carried a gun and live ammunition with the intent to capture wild animals in violation of Article 70 Subparag. 14 of the former Wildlife Protection and Management Act.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence as to the violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, the Defendant obtained permission to possess guns for the purpose of remedying harmful water.