Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to cut standing timber in a forest shall obtain permission from the competent authority.

Nevertheless, the Defendant cut off the 479-class 479 cubic meters from the forest of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the Si of the 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a certificate of taxation (tax payment) by item of tax, a certificate of investigation process, a statement of opinion, a statement of opinion, a report on the place of crime, a statement of standing timber damage and damage calculation, a statement of survey by standing timber, a table of survey by the person on the register of standing timber, a table of survey by the person on the register of standing timber and a statement of survey by the person on the register of the person on the register of the person on the register of the persons on the register of the persons on the register of the persons on the register of standing timber, a

1. Article 74 (1) 3 and Article 36 (1) of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, inclusive of the relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is that the forest area of this case is a forest owned by the defendant, not the felling of the forest, but the felling of the trees so that the trees can grow well, and the quantity of the trees recorded in the facts constituting the crime is different from the quantity of the trees cut by the defendant. Even if the defendant used the trees for domestic affairs, the period of the felling of the trees has already expired since the lapse of the statute of limitations in 2005.

2. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, are not easily believed that the Defendant, who runs an arboretum, did not confirm the boundaries of the forest, and rather owned by himself.