The judgment below

The conviction portion is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, prior to the amendment by Act No. 9763 of Jun. 9, 2009

F. The Forest Resources Act (hereinafter referred to as “Forest Resources Act”).

Article 36(1) provides that "a person who intends to cut standing timber or extract and gather forest products (hereinafter referred to as "standing timber cutting, etc.") in a forest shall obtain permission from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or the head of a regional forest office, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries." Paragraph (6) of the same Article provides that "where a person has obtained permission to cut standing timber, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1), a report on conversion of a mountainous district under Article 15 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act shall be deemed to have been filed with regard to the construction of a sloping road and a work road necessary for felling standing timber, etc., and Article 15 of the former Mountainous Districts Management Act (amended by Act No. 1031, May 31, 2010

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below acknowledged the facts and circumstances based on its adopted evidence, and found the Defendant not guilty of violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act concerning the establishment of access roads among the facts charged of this case on the ground that the act of building access roads in the judgment of the court below is deemed to have been reported according to the permission of extraction, and the act of

In light of the above relevant legal provisions and records, such determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to permission for conversion of mountainous district, contrary to what is alleged in

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on its adopted evidence, deemed that the Defendant’s act of cutting down the soil around 9gs of pine trees and then leading to the so-called “breaking out” work constitutes the extraction of trees.