Criteria for determining whether a forest is a forest under Article 2(1) of the Forestry Act

Whether a forest is a forest under Article 2 (1) of the Forestry Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the land concerned, regardless of its land category in the public register. Thus, even if land category on the land cadastre is a forest, even if it is classified as a forest, its loss as a forest, its loss cannot be deemed a temporary state, and if it cannot be deemed that it is a rock located in a forest in light of the surrounding surrounding circumstances, it does not constitute a mountain under the Forestry

Article 2 (1) of the Forestry Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do2299 Delivered on December 23, 1986

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Attorney Shin Jae-nam

Daegu High Court Decision 87No819 delivered on February 24, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether a forest is a forest under Article 2 (1) of the Forestry Act shall be determined according to the actual state of the land concerned, regardless of its land category entered in the public register. Thus, even though land category on the land cadastre is a forest, if the land category is a forest, the state of loss as a forest, the state of loss cannot be deemed a temporary state, and it cannot be deemed as a rock located in a forest in light of surrounding surrounding situations, such land does not constitute a forest under the Forestry Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2299 delivered on December 23, 196).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not have any evidence that the present condition of the land in this case falls under forest, and rather, according to the evidences of the city, the land in this case was developed as dry field to create farmland in the 1950s, and the boundary between the cultivation site and the development site of the reclaimed land was formed by piling up a stone fence in order to create farmland. Since the phenomenon as forest had already been lost, the middle part of the reclaimed land was cultivated. The remaining part of the land in this case was cultivated as mulberry trees. The remaining part of the land in this case was 4,5 years ago without cultivating it regularly at the wind with water frequent, and was formed as an implied dry field. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is hard to find that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the present state of farmland in this case and the surrounding part of the farmland in this case, and it is hard to see that the surrounding part of the land was already formed due to the fact-finding or mistake of facts.

In addition, so long as the land in this case does not fall under the forest stipulated in the Forestry Act, it cannot be said that the act of gathering earth and stones falls under the act of damaging the forest or gathering forest products stipulated in Article 90 (1) of the Forestry Act. Therefore, it is groundless to discuss

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)