Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100.

Punishment of the crime

Despite the fact that anyone did not carry with himself any firearms and live ammunition for the purpose of capturing wild animals in a place other than a hunting ground, the Defendants were willing to capture wild animals in the camping area in Chuncheon E, a hunting-prohibited area.

피고인들은 2013. 11. 21. 14:30경 위 수렵금지구역에서 야생동물을 포획할 목적으로 피고인 A는 엽총(제조회사 : 미국 스티븐슨, 12구경, 총번 : F)과 실탄 7발을, 피고인 B는 엽총(제조회사 : 이태리 베레타, 12구경, 총번기: G)과 실탄 5발을, 피고인 C은 엽총(제조회사 : 이태리 베레타, 12구경, 총번 : H)과 실탄을 같이 지니고 돌아다녔다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to carry with themselves firearms and live ammunition for the purpose of capturing wild animals.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Partial statement of the witness J or K in the court;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant C by the prosecution;

1. The police statement to I and J;

1. A statement of detection and statement of the I draft;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel by internal investigation report (the confirmation of the establishment of the hunting ground in Chuncheoncheon City), video-faging photographs, field photographs, internal investigation reports (Submission of the evidence I dynamics and photographs), and the Defendants and the defense counsel claimed that they did not go to the detection place of this case in order to make the dogs easy while on the move, and that they did not have a mother about the hunting of the Defendants, and that they did not hold only the shot gun at the time of detection.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendants alleged that they had been aware of each of the above evidence, namely, at the time of requesting a formal trial against the summary order of this case, they had been exposed to the place where the purpose of hunting was discovered, but they had never known the fact that the hunting prohibition area was the hunting prohibition area, and in this court, the Defendants asserted as above.