The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As seen below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant not guilty of the act of converting the forest into a mountainous district under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, where the Defendant engaged in flatization work to cultivate ginseng in the forest of this case, and thereby deemed that the Defendant diverted the forest to a mountainous district by changing the form and quality without permission.

1) According to Article 2 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry and Mountain Villages Development Promotion Act, and Article 7(1) and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Forestry and Mountain Villages Development Promotion Act, the act of the Defendant is stipulated as forest products exempt from the diversion of the mountainous district. According to Article 2 of the Ginseng Industry Act, ginseng is a plant belonging to the ginseng sector, and ultimately, cultivation of ginseng does not constitute a conversion of the mountainous district. In addition, even when forest products excluded from the diversion of the mountainous district are cultivated, it entails alteration of the form and quality from the ground or installation of facilities at a height or depth of at least 50 cm from the ground through embanking or cutting of the mountainous district, and the act of the Defendant is nothing more than the act of the diversion of the mountainous district, and the alteration of the form and quality of the forest of this case by removing the form and quality of the forest of this case.

B. The Defendant was trying to flatly land and did not want to change the surrounding land, and the Defendant’s Non-dominian article employed by the Defendant.