logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2021.02.04 2020고정133
산지관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Although a person who intends to divert a mountainous district has obtained permission from the head of the Korea Forest Service, the Defendant converted the mountainous district into a mountainous district by installing a stone shed and a vinyl, etc., without obtaining permission from the head of the Korea Forest Service, from the beginning of around 2017 to August 20, 2019, the part of 613 square meters of forest land (a quasi-preserved mountainous district) owned by C in Yang-Gun B (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) located in Yang-gu, Yang-gun (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) located in the area of 82,512 square meters of forest land owned by C (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. A survey report, a copy of a cadastral survey result, a survey report on the site of installation of posts for cadastral works (Attachment of data on the land-related land use plan of this case), a land use plan confirmation source (the defendant and defense counsel cannot be deemed to be a mountainous district because the shape as a mountainous district damaged by the forest of this case is lost, and the defendant did not have awareness that it is a forest;

The argument is asserted.

Whether it is a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act or not shall be determined according to the actual phenomenon of the relevant land regardless of the items in the public register, and the phenomenon of mountainous district has been lost.

Even if the lost state is temporary and it is possible to restore the state to the original state, the land constitutes a mountainous district (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do668, Dec. 13, 198; 2007Do1018, Jul. 10, 2008; 201Do1979, Nov. 29, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the part of the forest of this case, excluding the forest damaged land of this case, is the fact that standing timber was nonexistent, and the part of the forest of this case, other than the forest damaged land of this case, is cut and diverted from the forest of this case to the forest of this case without permission around February 2010; and ③ from the clan C to the forest of this case, the forest of this case and the forest of this case are located within the boundary of the forest of this case after the surveying of the forest of this case.

arrow