logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.10.06 2016노372
산지관리법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of 10 months and the fine of 20 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant appeared to have committed the instant crime while recognizing the criminal act; (b) the Defendant tried to restore a forest damaged by the Defendant using considerable expenses; and (c) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime before the instant crime was committed.

However, for the sake of preserving the environment of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, strict punishment is required for illegal diversion of mountainous districts, once damaged, it is difficult to restore the forest to its original state or requires a long time, and the fact that the area of the mountainous district unlawfully diverted by the defendant is not significant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow