All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The Defendants were indicted on the charge of violating the Management of Mountainous Districts Act with the content that the Defendants used a concrete package to convert a mountainous district without obtaining permission for conversion of a mountainous district on the 1,313 square meters of 1,313 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Jeonsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, a quasi-preserved mountainous district.

The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not sufficiently prove that the area of the mountainous district reaches 1,313 square meters, while recognizing the fact that the Defendants used the “part of the mountainous district”, and that there was a road that has already lost the shape as a mountainous district (hereinafter “existing passage”) among the exclusive use areas, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having sufficiently proved that the area of the mountainous district reaches 1,313 square meters, and found

Accordingly, the Defendants filed an appeal on the guilty part, and the prosecutor filed an appeal on the acquittal part of the reasons.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1 asserted on the instant land that had been used as a road prior to around 2008, and this does not constitute “profinal area” as prescribed by the Management of Mountainous Districts Act. Since the construction of concrete packaging on the existing passage road was conducted on September 2013, the part of the route without damaging trees around the surrounding area, and there was no damage to mountainous district exceeding the portion of the existing passage for which the first instance court rendered a verdict of innocence was acquitted. In contrast, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mountainous district or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mountainous district. 2) In so doing, the Defendants did not have any awareness of intention or illegality in violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act against the Defendants.

B. It is reasonable to view the existing passage along the instant land as a mountain path or work rather than a road that has lost the form of a mountainous district, rather than a road that has lost the form of a mountainous district, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal

Unlike this, existing.