logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.09.07 2017노122
산지관리법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The land of Gangnam-si C (hereinafter “instant land”) indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, which was long long used as dry field, where trees do not grow, and roads, furniture factories, etc. are located in the vicinity.

Therefore, although the land category of the above land is “ther”, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes “a mountainous district” subject to permission for conversion as prescribed by the Mountainous Districts Management Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Whether a mountainous district constitutes a mountainous district subject to the application of the Mountainous Districts Management Act ought to be determined according to the actual status of the pertinent land regardless of the items in the public account book (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11556, Jun. 11, 2009, etc.). Moreover, a mountainous district has lost its phenomenon as a mountainous district.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the witness F’s statement, the land in this case is deemed as falling under “a mountainous district” under the Management of the Mountainous Districts Act because the state of loss or loss is temporary state of reinstatement and it is possible to restore the original state to original state (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do668, Dec. 13, 198).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

① It is recognized that the Defendant had cultivated dry field crops in part of the instant land before and after the purchase of the instant land.

However, according to the images of aerial photography and on-site photographs (Evidence Nos. 12-17 of evidence), cultivation in the land of this case is suitable for the long-term farming landscape with any facility.

arrow