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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Any person who intends to divert a mountainous district shall obtain permission to divert the mountainous district from the head of the forest.

On November 2017, the Defendant, at the time of residence in the early police station B and C, cut and filled up the volume of 2 m to 2.5m by using the refratator without obtaining permission from the head of the competent forest office, and created a stairs-type farmland of 1,457mphers of 1,457m.

Accordingly, the defendant unlawfully diverted mountainous districts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect prepared by each special judicial police officer against the accused;

1. The land use plan confirmation source, plan for restoration of illegally damaged land, report on detection of illegal damage to forests, survey report on actual damage area, location map of damaged land, survey map of damaged land, report on calculation of recovery expenses for mountainous district, detailed determination of calculation standards for recovery expenses per report for mountainous district diversion in 2017, ledger of forest land, forestry map, and certified copy of register;

1. Application of on-site photographs and statutes governing on-site photographs of damaged areas;

1. Article 53 subparagraph 1 of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and the main sentence of Article 14 (1) of the Management of the Mountainous Districts which are the option of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Although the crime of this case committed by the Defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not be somewhat weak, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the circumstances, such as the recognition and reflect of the Defendant’s crime, the fact that the Defendant has no same record, the completion of restoration to the original state, and the fact that the Defendant was a construction operator at the request of a third party.