The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the size of the forest damaged by the Defendant is smaller than about 30 square meters. 2) As to the injury among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant only left the victim G with a stick once.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Of the instant facts charged, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the violation of the Mountainous Districts Management Act. Accordingly, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the degree of surveying the current status of the site prior to illegal mountainous districts, field photographs, etc., the lower court can sufficiently recognize that the area of the forest damaged by the Defendant constituted 2

Based on the judgment, this part of the charges was convicted.

In a thorough examination of records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial on the facts charged of injury, the appellate court does not arbitrarily reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, it is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.