The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of a stock company B who works for aggregate extraction business.

A person who intends to screen, clean, or crush aggregate shall prepare a site in excess of the size prescribed by Presidential Decree necessary for the installation, etc. of a camping site and auxiliary facilities and report thereon to the head of the competent Gun, as prescribed by Ordinance

Nevertheless, from December 199 to November 30, 2018, the Defendant collected earth and stone at the place of the earth and stone gathering located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and installed the E site on the side of the same Gun D located in the vicinity, not at the place where the installation of the aggregate sorting scraper at the time of installation of the aggregate, and screened, washing, and crushing aggregate without screening, washing, or reporting on crushing aggregate at the place.

2. The prosecutor charged a public prosecution by applying Article 49 Subparag. 7 and Article 32(1) of the Aggregate Extraction Act to the above charged facts.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant obtained permission to collect earth or stone in relation to the collection of earth or stone from places of business as stated in the above facts charged, and obtained such permission, and conducted screening, washing, or crushing using scrapers as stated in the above facts charged. Article 3 of the Aggregate Extraction Act provides that Article 32 of the Aggregate Extraction Act shall not apply to mountainous districts as defined in the Management of Mountainous Districts Act. Thus, even in cases of screening, washing, or crushing of earth or stone collected after obtaining permission to collect earth or stone in accordance with the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, the prosecutor must prove that the prosecutor is obligated to report in accordance with Article 32 of the Aggregate Extraction Act, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325