The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the airline margin that taken a 129 square meters of D forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”) in the light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant may be found to have cut the trees of the instant forest as indicated in the facts charged, and the container stuff which the Defendant brought about the instant forest (hereinafter “instant container stuff”) constitutes a building under the Building Act, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts by the lower court that acquitted the Defendant.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., ① the green belt area of the instant forest can be confirmed by the aerial photography in 2010 and 2011. However, the Defendant asserts that the instant forest does not have been planted and the surrounding areas of the forest, and that there would have been a difference in aerial dust as above by going beyond the instant forest. ② H installed a retaining wall and a marina on the ground of the instant land from December 2, 2009 to April 201, and was investigated by the police due to the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and stated that “the instant forest was in the same condition as it was in the present before the instant construction was conducted.” However, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that there was a lack of evidence in light of the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., ① the volume of 1 and 2 container stuffs inside the container, which is small to the extent that the movement is very easy, and ② the defendant is the defendant.