2014Gohap72 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Defendant Red)

Creation and creation of forest resources consisting of crimes partially recognized to ○○

Violation of the Management Act)

1. Stamb○ (68 years old), and other projects;

2. Red○○ (73 years old), and non-permanent.

Park Jong-man (Lawsuits) and the least leather (Public Trial)

September 25, 2015

1. Defendant Red ○ shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months;

2. Of the facts charged against Defendant Red○○, the charge against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (forest) on the victim’s transfer and leather is acquitted.

3. Defendant’s gambling ○ is not guilty.

Criminal Records

On December 13, 2013, Defendant Red○ was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. by the Cheongju District Court on December 13, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2013.

Facts of crime

Defendant Red○ extracted and carried out 8 glue tree 8 glus owned by the State, which was born within the aforesaid forest, such as 1,345 square meters of forest land in Dogwon-gun, Gangwon-do, Seowon-gun, which was a 36 cm landscaping tree 1, 1, 1, 1, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the product from the forest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness ○○○, Kimun, and the largest on the spot;

1. The police statement on the punishment of ○;

1. The actual state of illegal extraction of pine trees, such as the construction site of the winter Highway, each photograph, each forest, the details of damage to the state forest, any known forest, any damaged area map, any certified copy of the forestry map, any forest land register, any on-site photograph, any photograph (the photograph of pine trees that are extracted from state forests) and any investigation report (the process of checking pine trees removed from the damaged area

1. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Red○, and defense counsel, as to the protocol of seizure (voluntary submission, etc.) and the investigation report (Attachment of a photograph of the seizure site)

1. Defendant Hong○ and his defense counsel’s assertion

On September 22, 2011, Defendant Red ○ did not extract pine trees from the Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 25 - 17,889 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “san 25 - 1 forest”) since he waived his right to extract pine trees from the Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 1-6,393 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “san 1-4 forest”), and even if the forest was extracted, Defendant Red ○ did not intend to commit a theft since he was aware that it was a road zone where the said forest had the right to extract trees.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, it can be recognized that Defendant Red ○ extracted pine trees from 1-4 forest land as indicated in the judgment without obtaining permission for extraction.

1. ① mountain 25 - Part of the forest land is included in the road zone at the construction site of the YYY 60-No. 11-No. 11-YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACT

From July 201 to September 201 of the same year, Defendant Hong○ was engaged in the work of extracting pine trees within the part included in the road zone among the above 25-1 forest land. However, as Defendant Red○○ did not fully pay the purchase price pursuant to the tree sales contract, Defendant Hong○ received a letter of renunciation from Defendant Red○○ around September 20, 201, and then again sold KRW 300,000 for pine trees to Nonindicted Red○○ and one other on October 20, 201, and accordingly, Defendant Red○’s work of extracting pine trees was also suspended.

Since then, Defendant Park○-○ delegated the right to mine pine trees in the part contained in the road zone among the forest land from the above Kim○-dong and one other, and performed the work of extracting pine trees from November 201 to the above part.

However, in January 2012, it was found that, as a result of a field investigation with the Jeju National Forest Administration and the Jeju National Forest Management Office under the jurisdiction of the Korea Forest Service, the damage was caused to trees, which were naturally excavated from the land within the 4 forest land, were extracted and carried out without permission, from the land adjacent to the zone at the site of national expressway between Yangyang and Yangyang-1 forest.

② We examine whether Defendant Hong○○ was doing excavation work of pine trees in the above mountain 1-4 forest land.

Busan 1- - The witness who actually extracted pine trees in accordance with the direction of Red ○○○, was present at this court as a witness, and ① was introduced by Defendant Red ○○○, and Defendant Red ○ instructed the witness to excavate pine trees at the above site by informing Defendant Red ○ to the work site. Defendant Red ○, upon the direction of Defendant Red ○○○○, extracted pine trees in the above forest, and sold them in KRW 20 million to ○○, an operator of Red ○, who was the operator of the instant forest. ① the above ○○○○○, transferred the pine trees out of KRW 20 million to the account in the name of Defendant Red ○, and Defendant Red ○○ solely acquired the said KRW 20 million.

The buyer of pine trees purchased 28gs of pine trees from the largest ○○ Freeboard in the course of investigation, but among pine trees, the seal affixed was not affixed. The buyer stated that KRW 20 million was deposited into the account in the name of Red○○○○, and that Defendant Red○ was solely received KRW 20 million.

On the contrary, the name of the witness ○○ and Jindo stated that the Defendant Red ○○ was unable to be deemed as Defendant Red ○○ at the construction site of a forest and field after September 201, and that Defendant Hong ○ stated that there was an entry of pine 25-1 at the construction site of a forest and field two times after September 201. However, Defendant Red ○ stated that there was an entry of pine 1-4 at the construction site of a forest and field two times in mountain as an issue of pine 25-1, and that the actual extraction of pine 1-4 at the direction of Defendant Red ○○○ was the largest ○○○, so it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant Red ○○○ merely based on the above witness’s legal statement does not have any entry that Defendant Red ○ issued orders to mine 1-4 forest and field to the largest ○○.

③ With respect to the Defendant’s assertion that ○○○○, rather than Defendant Hong○, extracted pine trees from each forest above, there is insufficient evidence to prove that there was a dispute between Defendant Red○○○ or ○○○○○○○ by having the Defendant extracting pine trees from 1-4 forest land, or that there was a dispute between KRW 20 million for the sales proceeds of pine trees extracted from 4 forest land and KRW 1- 4 forest land. As such, Defendant Hong○○ and ○○○○○○○ was insufficient to support that Defendant Park○○ extracted pine trees from 1-4 forest land. As such, Defendant Red○○○’s assertion that Defendant Park○ extracted pine trees from 1-4 forest land is difficult to believe.

④ As to the assertion that the area of the extraction authority was known to the point of where it had been located or not, the Defendant Red ○○ appears to be difficult to capture the boundary of the forest of this case from around July 201 to around 25, 201, mountain 25, mountain 25-1, mountain 25-1, and the extraction and removal of pine trees is subject to criminal punishment if it is necessary to obtain permission from the competent authority and without permission, and if it is extracted and taken out without permission, it would normally start work after checking the scope of the area of the extraction permission, and there is considerable difference between mountain 1-4, mountain 25 and mountain 25, mountain 25,1 forest - 1, because it is considerably clear that the boundary of the forest of this case is difficult to perceive, in light of the fact that, unlike 25,00, mountain 14, mountain - red 25,000, forest 166, forest - 1,000 square - 1,000.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 73 (1) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (Selection of Imprisonment) and Article 73 (1) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant Red○○: The reasons for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act;

2. Recommendation type on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months from six months to three years.

[Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (one year to six years) of the theft of special property (property with high value) (one year and six months to three years) (no special person)

* Scope of sentence comparison between applicable sentences and recommended types: one year to six years;

3. Determination of sentence: Ten months of imprisonment (the collection of penalty shall not be declared as it is impossible to compute the market price of pine trees).

4. Grounds for sentencing;

Defendant Red○ cut 8 girs from a state-owned forest that was born in a state-owned forest. In light of the fact that the forest was destroyed once, it was impossible to restore the forest to its original state-owned forest or requires a long period of time to restore the original state-owned forest, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime with knowledge that the forest was not included in the expressway area where the right to extract trees was granted, and thereby obtained a considerable amount of profit therefrom, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant as it is not good to commit the instant crime. However, considering the fact that the number of trees that the Defendant was found guilty is less than eight girs, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant. However, in consideration of the fact that the number of trees that the Defendant was convicted was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a special larceny committed by the Defendant after the instant case, and each judgment became final and conclusive, each of which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and in consideration of equity in the case where the instant special larceny and fraud was

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant Park Jong-○ is a person who is delegated with the extraction and sale of pine trees from the outsider of Kim Jong-su, a person who is a person who extracts pine trees, and the Defendant Red ○○ is a person who is a person who is entrusted with the extraction and sale of pine trees, and Defendant Red ○ is a person who is a person who is a person who is a person who has the right to extract pine trees, and Defendant Red ○ is a person who is a person who operates a business entity, i.e., a person who is a person having the right to extract pine trees, and i.e., an enterprise, i., a person who is a person having the right to extract them.

1. From November 201 to December 1, 201 of the same year, the Defendants: (a) extracted from the area permitted to extract from 1,400m of forest land 25-1, 00m ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

2. From November 201 to December 201 of the same year, the Defendants extracted and cut down 81 gall trees owned by the State (in total 5,398,000 won in mountainous district) located within the said forest, such as 36 cm 1,345 square meters at mountainous district-based 245,000, and 36 cm 1goms at mountainous district-based 245,000 won, without obtaining permission to excavate from Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around 201 to the end of the same year. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants to steal the products from forest.

B. Determination

1) As seen earlier, Defendant Red ○, who determined the public bid relationship between Defendant Park○ and Defendant Red ○○, stolen pine trees from 1-4 forest land as indicated in its reasoning. As such, it is deemed that Defendant Park Jong-○ conspireds with Defendant Red ○, or directly committed the above crimes.

The evidence that ○○○○○○○○ was in collusion with Defendant Hong○○○○○, which is consistent with the fact that he committed the crime, is a witness’s legal statement near ○○○○○○○○○○○, and a police statement on the near ○○○○○○○○. First of all, it is difficult to conclude that ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s statement was not admissible on the ground that the aforementioned statement was merely a rumor that it was hard to conclude that the above statement made by Defendant Hong○○○○○○ was not admissible on the ground that ○○○○○○○’s testimony was insufficient to prove that ○○○○○○○○ was not admissible on the ground that ○○○○○’s testimony was not admissible on the ground that ○○○○○○’s testimony was not admissible on the ground that ○○○’s sale proceeds was not admissible on the ground that ○○○’s testimony was not admissible on the ground that it was not admissible on the ground that the above statement was made by Defendant 20○○○○.

Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to find out the fact that the defendant Park ○ was committing the crime in collusion with the defendant Red○○.

2) Determination as to Defendant 1’s Park ○○

The evidence that conforms to the facts charged by Defendant Hong○○, who extracted pine trees from mountain 1-4, exists in accordance with the facts charged by Defendant Hong○○, but it is recognized that Defendant Hong○, as seen earlier, has extracted pine trees from mountain 1-4 forest land and that Defendant Hong○ and Defendant Hong○ are in conflict of each other, etc., it is difficult to grant credibility to Defendant Hong○’s legal statement and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

B) Busan 25 - Defendant 25 - Of the forest land, Defendant 25 - Defendant 25 - among the pine trees extracted by himself at the time of the police’s statement and the legal statement, Defendant 1 stated that 5 gys of pine trees extracted from the non-road area among the forest land included in the 25 - 1 forest land included the aforementioned evidence (the witness’s witness testimony and the police’s statement of Ocratation) may be used as reinforced evidence as to the fact that pine trees were extracted from the non-road area among the forest land included in the 25 - 1 forest land. As such, Defendant 25 - Defendant 25 gys of the forest land included in the non-road area in the 25 - 1 forest land.

However, according to the police statement of ○○○○○○○○○○, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, the number of 200 pieces of forest land, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, and the number of 25 pieces of forest land, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, was located in the boundary of 100 pieces of forest land, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, and the number of 10 pieces of forest land, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, was located in the boundary of 50 pieces of forest land, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, and the number of 300 pieces of forest land, which was located in the name of the Defendant 2 at the time of their sale and purchase, which was located in the 25th forest land zone.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the person illegally extracted it without permission and stolen it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

C) Sub-determination

Thus, the facts charged against the defendant Park ○ constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3) The part concerning Defendant Red ○’s 25 U.S. - 1 forest land

According to the witness's statement at least ○○○○-1 forest, a witness may be found to have extracted 1-2 glue trees from 1-2 glue trees from 1-1 forest with the direction of Defendant Red○○○. However, as seen earlier, in mountain 25-1 forest, the test doping indicating the boundary of an area other than a road zone was placed in excess of the boundary area. According to the witness's statement at least ○○○-1 forest, it is recognized that the witness extracted flue trees from 25-1 forest with the direction of Defendant Red○○○○, with the test of 25-1 forest, at the direction of Defendant Red○○, and thus, according to the investigation report (the report on the result of the witness's most real-time telephone recording), it was difficult to acknowledge that the maximum ○○○ was 25-1 forest with a view to extracting flue trees beyond the boundary of 1 forest, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 2 was guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) mountain 1 - Parts concerning forest land 4

According to the health stand, the witness’s maximum statement, and the police statement about ○○○-type, the maximum number of trees extracted without permission, and the market price of the trees extracted from ○○○○ without permission, the sum of 10gs (1-4gs: 8gs, 25gs, 20gs) and the total of 10gs (20 millions: 20 millions) and the small trees extracted from ○○-4 forests without permission in accordance with the direction of Defendant Red○○○○○○○○, and the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the small-scale trees purchased from ○○○○-2 and KRW 5 million were included in the charges of larceny in the charges of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the small-scale 1-4 of the charges of larceny and the small-scale 20 millions of the charges of this case and no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the small-scale 1-4 of the charges of cutting out the forest and its nearby forest resources.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Masung-young

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Jin-han