The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case of mistake of facts, the lower court determined otherwise by erroneous determination of facts, even though the land category of this case does not constitute a mountainous district subject to permission for conversion of mountainous districts under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, such as there is no standing timber.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the lower court’s judgment found the Defendant guilty on the charge of the instant case where: (a) the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the Korea Office of Petitions; (b) performed banking and rearrangement work using one of the equipment equipment in the Chungcheong-gun C and D forest, which is the instant land, from March 18, 2012 to April 201; and (c) installed a stone shed and U-style plug to unlawfully divert the area of approximately KRW 6,727 square meters and caused forest damage worth KRW 6,211,00 for expenses for restoration of mountainous district by unlawfully diverting the area of KRW 1,727 square meters.

B. Whether a mountainous district constitutes a mountainous district subject to application of the Mountainous Districts Management Act for determination of mistake of facts should be determined according to the actual state of the relevant land regardless of the land category on the public register. Even if the land category on the land cadastre is a forest and forest, if the state of loss is lost as a mountainous district, and the state of loss cannot be deemed temporary and cannot be deemed as a rock, etc. located within a mountainous district in light of surrounding surrounding phenomena, such land does not constitute a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do668 Decided December 13, 198, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4360 Decided September 14, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1018 Decided July 10, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11556 Decided June 11, 2009, etc.). It is consistent with the principle that the land of this case constitutes mountainous district, and that the Defendant did not trees on the land of this case from the investigative agency to the trial court, and that it was only catched with natural drainage.