The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, without obtaining permission for standing timber in a national park, was misunderstanding that standing timber could be cut, and there were justifiable grounds to believe that such act was possible.

Therefore, although the defendant's case constitutes a mistake in law, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① the Defendant asked the public official in charge of the viewing forest and the public official in charge of the cutting of standing timber prior to the cutting of standing timber, and then cut standing timber after hearing the answer that the Defendant could cut out without permission from the public

However, at the investigation stage, the Defendant stated that “the former owner of a site of standing timber would control a tree tree and farmer without permission, and there is no doubt about whether it is possible to fell at the national park management office (see, e.g., evidence record 22).” The lower court, prior to felling standing timber, issued a reply that it is possible to cut a tree without permission from the public official in charge of racing viewing and viewing forests and public officials.

Then, the witness examination of the witness E of the court below asked the public official in charge of viewing and viewing of racing only after felling standing timber.

statement (see, e.g., 45 pages of the trial record), the statement is frequently changed without reasonable grounds, and otherwise, the defendant sought prior advice from the competent authority.

Unless there is any material to see, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s assertion as it is, and ② the Defendant believed that the land was already located in a racing national park before cutting standing timber on one’s own land, but it was known that the land was located in a racing national park, and that it is possible to cut it without permission, as seen earlier.