Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the mountain owner of the forest in Chungcheongnam-gun-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the defendant B is the mountain owner of the forest in the forest in the forest in the forest in the forest in Eul-gun.

Any person who intends to cut standing timber or extract or gather forest products in a forest shall obtain permission from the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu or the head of the competent regional forest office.

Nevertheless, on February 2, 2013, the Defendants, in collusion with F as a felling business operator, mobilized 6,50 square meters of forest land other than the permission area for cutting trees, 12,000 square meters of forest land owned by the Defendant E, and 1,500 square meters of forest land owned by the Defendant E, and 1,500 square meters of forest land owned by G, among forest land owned by the Defendant Defendant D, and cut down by using equipment and human resources, such as ribage trees, which were born on a 1,50 square meters of forest land owned by G

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of suspect with regard to F;

1. The current status of illegal forest damage and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of forest damage;

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 36 (1) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Even if the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, considering that the Defendants’ act of violation of the Criminal Procedure Act, among the forests where the Defendants cut standing timber, G owner G of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendants’ act of violation of the Criminal Procedure Act, is deemed to be reasonable in that the size of the standing timber the Defendants cut out without permission, and the degree of the Defendants’ act of violation is so large that the amount of fine prescribed in the summary order is not appropriate.