beta
Text
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
Reasons
1. A person who intends to fell standing timber or extract and gather forest products within the summary of the facts charged shall obtain permission from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or the head of a local forest management office as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry;
Nevertheless, the Defendant cut standing timber by using trees equivalent to KRW 1,133,00,00, which were planted at the same time without obtaining permission from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu or the head of the local forest office, in the course of installing a temporary building in ASEAN-si B in 2011 (the foregoing indictment was modified). 2. The judgment below was made.
A. In a case where the statutory penalty is modified by the amendment of the substantive law, the statutory penalty, which is the basis of the period of prescription, shall be based on the statutory penalty applicable to the relevant crime under Article 1 of the Criminal Act.
See DE, Note Criminal Litigation Act (Ⅱ), F, 2017, 506 (G Writing)
B. We examine what is the legal provisions applicable to the instant crime.
1) The prosecutor asserts that ① Articles 74(1)3 and 36(1) of the former Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act shall apply to the instant crime (amended by Act No. 14987, Oct. 31, 2017; hereinafter “former Forest Resources Act”). ② In this case, the statutory penalty is imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 15 million won, and ③ the statute of limitations is seven years (Article 249(1)4 of the Criminal Procedure Act).
Although the above Act was amended on October 31, 2017, and the statutory penalty was changed to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or with a fine not exceeding 30 million won, it is not a change due to an excessive punishment or a change in legal ideology, but a change in order to cope with the special needs at that time according to the change in circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do747, Dec. 23, 2005, etc.). The previous Act still applies to this case.