The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of managing the mountainous district of this case where the ancestor’s graveyard had been established, the court of law and the court of law obtained approval from the competent agency on January 2014 regarding a part of the said mountainous district, and the above relatives’ association cut down night trees, etc. in the instant mountainous district.

In addition, since the burial ground established in the mountainous district of this case is deemed to fall under the burial ground permitted under the Act on Funeral Services, etc. and permission for the conversion of the mountainous district is deemed to be granted, it is possible for a clan clan to appropriately record and manage the site adjacent to the burial ground of this case, and therefore, it is possible to rearrange the mountainous district, such as seeding, etc. in order to manage the burial ground of this case without any separate permission.

Accordingly, the defendant's act of cutting down miscellaneous trees, etc. existing in connection with the management of mountainous districts in the vicinity of the cemetery of this case after being awarded a contract for landscaping construction from the above clans association and planting native trees, etc. in the place and planting turfs in the mountainous district to prevent soil loss, etc. does not constitute the act of cutting standing trees or diversion of mountainous districts without permission.

Even so, the defendant cannot be deemed to have cut standing timber or diverted mountainous districts of this case without intentionally obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant consistently stated to the purport that all of the crimes of this case were recognized by the competent authorities, including: (a) the Defendant, in excess of the scope of the mountainous district authorized by the competent authorities at the time from the investigative process of this case to the trial process of the lower court; and (b) the case of a clan funeral station already permitted under Article 14(5)