Whether a violation of the Forestry Products Control Act is established in the event that a forest is reclaimed without obtaining permission for the establishment of a private cemetery and obtaining permission for the reclamation under the Forestry Products Control Act.

In a case where permission is obtained for the installation of private graveyardss in a forest, it is premised on the construction of forest roads and the construction of other stop operations by cutting trees inevitably for the purpose of the installation of the cemetery, even if the above Acts differ in the respective legislative purposes, so if the land is reclaimed without obtaining permission for the reclamation pursuant to the Forestry Products Control Act, it cannot be exempted from the responsibility for performing the above work, as the above acts differ in the respective legislative purposes.

Articles 2 and 7 of the Forestry Products Control Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Government's branch court of Seoul and Criminal District Court (71 Gohap83) in the first instance court

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant 2 and 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 and 3 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

From among the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, twenty days shall be included in the calculation of the above sentence; ten days shall be included in the calculation of the above sentence.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final decision.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal shall be as follows:

The court below held that since Defendants conspired to do so from around May 3, 1971 to August 18 of the same year, the acts of developing farmland and its incidental facilities are about the 21,450 meters wide by using a sculpianian (hereinafter omitted) at Yangju-gun-gun-gun-gun-si-U.S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.

2. First, the prosecutor's appeal part against the defendant 2 and 3 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the court below, it is hard for the defendants to find that the above construction work was carried out by the public prosecutor or the judicial police officer, and the records of the search report prepared by the judicial police officer on the above construction work, and the records of the investigation report on the construction of new burial grounds are as follows; Defendant 2, as the chief of the affairs of the foundation (name omitted) of Gyeonggi-do, who is in charge of the construction of new burial grounds and the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds; Defendant 3, as the chief of the office or the office building of the public burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds and the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds and the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds and the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds for the purpose of the construction of new burial grounds without permission.

Thus, although the so-called defendant 2 and 3's main case falls under Article 9 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Articles 7 (1) and 2 of the Forestry Products Control Act, the court below found the defendants' main case does not fall under the development of forest under Article 2 of the Forestry Products Control Act, or the defendants' mistake that their act does not constitute a crime. The court below found the defendants not guilty as to the defendants on the ground that there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding that they do not constitute a crime, and there was an error of law by erroneous interpretation of the Forestry Products Control Act, or by erroneous determination of evidence to find the facts about the defendants' criminal intent. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal on this point is justified, and therefore, the part on the defendant 2 and 3 among the judgment below is not reversed.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against Defendant 2 and 3 among the judgment below is reversed, and a party member is decided again after pleading.

(Criminal Facts)

Defendant 2, as the chief of the affairs of the Foundation (name omitted), is the head of the affairs of the Foundation (name omitted) Park, a person in charge of overall affairs and duties related to the establishment of a private park cemetery, carried out by the said Foundation on the same side as the representative of the Ulsan-do Yang-do Yang-ri, and Defendant 3 is the person in charge of the duties of performing the construction directly as the chief of the site management office of the private cemetery of the said Corporation. The Defendants, in collusion, developed the land at the level of 21,450 square meters from May 3, 1971 to August 8, 198 of the said year by using the Don-ri Don Don Don Don Don Don (hereinafter omitted) and the same side of the said Corporation from

(Abstract of Evidence)

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts of the judgment of the court below and the trial court of the court below

1. Each statement made by a prosecutor and judicial police officer that conforms to the facts contained in the protocol of suspect examination of the Defendants in charge of duties;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 1 and 2, which conforms to the facts stated in the judgment

1. Statement of Nonindicted 3 prepared by the senior judicial police officer's duty handling, which corresponds to the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. A port investigation report prepared by a judicial police officer in charge of duties, which complies with the facts of a judgment;

1. Entry into records of seizure of pine trees 93 copies and 58 copies prepared by judicial police officers in charge of duties, which correspond to the facts in the judgment;

Each so-called Defendants’ holding in law constitutes Article 9(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 7(1), 2, and 30 of the Forestry Products Control Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and so-called so-called Defendants: (a) choose imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term; (b) all the Defendants are first offenders; (c) obtain permission to develop certain areas after the crime was committed; and (d) the Defendants are able to take into account the circumstances of the crime, such as the fact that they are in depth and are not likely to repeat the crime; and (b) there are reasons for considering the circumstances of the crime, such as the fact that the Defendants are divided into depth of their errors; (c) applying Articles 55(1)3 and 57 of the Criminal Act, within the scope of the term of punishment to be mitigated for a limited period of time before the sentence was pronounced pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act; (d) 20 days for Defendant 3 and 10 days for Defendant 621 of the above Act.

3. To make decisions on the appeal against Defendant 1 of the following prosecutor:

As to the above facts charged, the above defendant 1 started with the installation of a park and gave scholarships to the children of poor families in agricultural and fishing villages, and the defendant 2 came to know of specialized knowledge and experience in the park cemetery business. As such, the defendant 1 was entrusted to the defendant 2 with all of the affairs concerning the installation of the park cemetery on March 30, 1971, and the defendant 2 did not know that all of the procedures for the installation of the park cemetery were completed, while presenting the permission for the establishment of the park (title omitted), the permission for the installation of the private cemetery, and the certificate of a non-permanent park, etc., and the defendant 1 did not know that all of the procedures for the installation of the park were completed, and the defendant 2 was ordered to start the construction without the above permission for the reclamation of the park, and the defendant 1 did not know of the defects in the installation of the cemetery, and thus, the court below's order to permit the reclamation of the land to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 to inform the public of all the above facts.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Judge)