All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Land damaged by the Defendants to misunderstanding the fact is a state-owned forest (state-owned forest), but it is not a mountainous district defined in the Mountainous Districts Management Act because the Defendants did not have standing timber for a long time.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts refers to “land where standing timber or bamboo is collectively brought up” or “land where standing timber or bamboo that has been collectively brought up is temporarily lost,” excluding farmland, grassland, housing site, road, and other land prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act). In such cases, whether a mountainous district subject to the Mountainous Districts Management Act falls under a mountainous district subject to the Mountainous Districts Management Act shall be determined depending on the actual state of the relevant land, regardless of any item on the public record, and land category on the land lot

Even if a mountainous district does not lose its phenomenon as a temporary state and cannot be deemed as a stone site, etc. located in a mountainous district in light of the surrounding surrounding circumstances, the land does not constitute a mountainous district under the " Mountainous Districts Management Act, etc." (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11556, Jun. 11, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the part of the land damaged by the Defendants can be seen as a forest where standing timber was fluorous. Thus, the land damaged by a snow shed was not planted in that place.

Even in light of the above damaged land and the surrounding land condition, the part of the land damaged by the Defendants also constitutes mountainous district can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is without merit.

B. Defendants are aged and mountainous districts are determined on the unfair argument of sentencing.