The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant had cut the instant cutting at the time of the previous illegal diversion in 2014, which was already punished by the Defendant, and is not a new criminal act separate from the previous illegal diversion act. 2) Even if the instant case is a new crime separate from the previous illegal diversion act, the forest damaged by the Defendant is two parcels of Kimcheon-si, E and B, and there is no fact that the remainder D and F were damaged.

In addition, the Defendant did not request the Corporation to restore the forest against the previous illegal diversion of mountainous district, but did not instruct the damage. Thus, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment for a period of four-month suspension, community service hours, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. In the facts charged in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the ex officio determination prosecutor shall add “(s) the size of D to 944m2, B’s size, 348m2, E’s size, 181m2, F’s size, 703m2,176m2” to “E’s size of 962m2, B’s size, 343m2, D’s size, 181m2, F’s size, 703m2,189m2, and 2,189m2” (hereinafter “instant four real estate”). In the facts charged, “a person who intends to convert a mountainous district other than a preserved mountainous district” was “a person who intends to convert a mountainous district” in front of the facts charged and “a person who changes the date and place under paragraph (1) from a place other than a temporarily preserved mountainous district,” and “a total of 2,176m2,189m2.”

The judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio reversal, but the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court held that the Defendant was separate from the previous illegal diversion of mountainous district, such as the facts stated in the lower judgment.