The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles does not intend to use mountainous district for a purpose other than its original purpose, but does not fall under the conversion of mountainous district prescribed in the Mountainous Districts Management Act. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) A person who intends to divert a mountainous district of the summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall obtain permission from the Administrator of the National Forest Service, etc. according to the classification of the types, size, etc. of the mountainous district prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the same shall also apply

Nevertheless, from December 11, 2015 to December 23, 2015, the Defendant diverted a mountainous district to approximately 36,166 square meters, including the removal of topsoils and mination work, in a mountain district owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the mountainous district of this case”) located in South South C (hereinafter “the mountainous district of this case”), without permission from the competent administrative agency.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

(c)

The prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant’s above act on the ground that it constitutes Article 53 subparag. 1 and Article 14(1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Mountainous Districts Management Act provides that “exclusive use of mountainous districts” means use of mountainous districts for purposes other than those falling under any of the following, such as afforestation, forest care, extraction of standing trees, and gathering of earth and rocks, or changing the form and quality of mountainous districts for such purposes.

Therefore, in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, it should be recognized that the Defendant used the mountainous district of this case for purposes other than its original purpose or changed the form and quality of the mountainous district of this case for

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the trial court, the defendant returned to the instant case.